There are plenty of young, attractive women who are well-respected in the firearms community. If you do an image search on their name, you get a lot of pictures of them doing gun-related things in the kind of clothes that gun nerds wear. If you look up their Instagram profiles, there's a normal amount of silliness mixed in with lots of Serious Gun Stuff. It's not rocket science.
It can equally be a marker that they're more concerned with looking right for the job than being good at it. People who excel in certain arenas don't need to spend much time making sure they look the part; their reputation precedes them and their work speaks for itself.
You're also ignoring the point raised by >>447335 which is that film crews don't wear uniforms, they just wear their normal clothes.
>>447340 >It can equally be a marker that they're more concerned with looking right for the job than being good at it. People who excel in certain arenas don't need to spend much time making sure they look the part; their reputation precedes them and their work speaks for itself.
That can be true enough in some cases, but I'm not sure that applies to this lass, for obvious reasons.
>>447340 >People who excel in certain arenas don't need to spend much time making sure they look the part
Yes whereas in this case we're talking about someone who walked straight into a high-up job with zero prior experience on the basis of her Dad knowing the employers.
No we're not. We've been talking about the abstract concept for a while now. Not her, obviously she fucked up, just someone who dresses like her, who works on a film crew and if that says anything meaningful about their proficiency at their job.
Most of the pictures I can find of film crews are people in jeans and T-shirts or flannel but I have known a fair few who work in the props department and they definitely lean towards goth/metal/alternative. What other subculture grew up making fantasy swords and armour in their spare time? I won't pretend I'm deeply familiar with the industry but from what little I have seen, it makes sense that there'd be "alternative" people involved there.
Also the obvious point I missed which is that this is America we're talking about, weapons manufacturers blatantly do sell branded women's clothing too.
Latest theory is that someone failed to clear a prop round properly and chambered a blank with it, effectively creating a jerry-rigged conventional live round.
For revolvers, prop rounds tipped with a bullet are used to maintain the appearance of a loaded gun. If the bullet becomes separated from the casing, and you put a blank behind it, then you've basically got a loaded gun that is going to discharge an actual projectile when fired and you've got a Brandon Lee waiting to happen.
>>447350 That's not weird unless you're being obtuse. There are plenty of pictures of Lena dressed like she knows what she's doing, but no-one's produced any of this lass. Trawling through Lena's instagram and posting some links proving that she sometimes dresses like a normal person isn't pertinent, it's like trying to prove a deacon doesn't go to church by posting picture of him in a field.
>(at least, according to one of the posters here)
That's right, we're a bunch of right arseholes and you're "just visiting" and completely separate from us, but you must enjoy the mean things we say or why would you keep coming back? If you go to such lengths to defend criticism of a demographic, people on gs (online in general) are just going to end up criticising that demographic more simply to piss you off. I doubt you would have gone to these lengths if it had been a man being talked about, because slagging off men happens on here all the time and people say nothing.
>>447575 >I doubt you would have gone to these lengths if it had been a man being talked about, because slagging off men happens on here all the time and people say nothing.
How to let everyone know you're an chronic masturbator without saying you're an chronic masturbator.
>>447575 >There are plenty of pictures of Lena dressed like she knows what she's doing, but no-one's produced any of this lass
Right, absence of evidence being evidence of absence and all that you thick twat.
>I should have said squarely because of their gender
But that's something you're inferring and is the core of your argument. If the people you're arguing with also believed the criticism given was purely given on the basis of gender, then there wouldn't be an argument, would there?
>>447582 No mate, but perhaps remember you're in the equivalent to a pub debate. Unless anyone's actually going to interview her and gauge her competence, we're just pretty much gossiping as we can never prove anything either way, so marginal factors like it being easy to find evidence that Lena seems to take her role seriously vs the other girl come to the fore because it's just supposition that doesn't need to be stated as such.
>>447580 Andy Murray. And the 'scrutiny' on Patsy was only due to you resisting the notion that she could be scrutinised, thus turning it into a whole 'thing' whereas if you hadn't piped up, it would have just passed as normal like the 'Andy Murray is lying' post a bit above the Patsy one. Notice how no-one came in saying "How dare you" and as such no argument occurred, but because you came in with bums blazing about Patsy it dragged on, and more egos got involved and looked for more evidence because of *you* or the people like you, not her or the fact she's a woman.
Do you understand that if you/whoever it was that drew ire with that had just remained silent, it would have passed, just like the scrutiny of Andy Murray further up? Much like the scrutiny of men we express, it's just that you don't pick up on that because men are better than women and don't need protecting by big strong transfembots like yourself.
>>447583 None of the criticism revolved around her gender, just the nature of her story and the way it couldn't be proven and could only be suspected. She said as much herself that she didn't think anything of it until a mate got suspicious, so if it wasn't clear to her, why would it be immediately clear and not a curiosity to others?
I'm just going to wrap my wedding band in my shoelaces and leave them under my car, so I can get PR. Unfortunately I don't have a vagina so no-one will get angry when I'm accused of angling for PR.
Not got to grips with the anonymous posting yet, lad? I have often pointed out that this place has "longstanding issues" with women but the moment you lads start with the overzealous woman bashing or the inevitable bickering that follows I'm well shot of it because it's all so tedious. The only exception to this was the recent rape talk because the acceptance of sexual assault being okay as it wasn't full-on rape went too far for me.
Some of you lads have unhealthy attitudes towards women and I will continue to call this out from time to time, but fucked if I'm going to get involved in the minutiae this inevitably descends into.
>>447589 >you
>anonymous posting
>I have often pointed out
I've got the hang enough to have sometimes pretended to raise the same issues just to start an argument, though admittedly there's an element of hypocrisy in there it does make things seem a bit less serious.
>I have often pointed out that this place has "longstanding issues" with women
Yes, you have. And never in a constructive, helpful, or aspirational way. Only ever as an attack or a distraction, and what happens each time? You create an argument. You never tread diplomatically, nor do any of your ilk, and it's like you're primed to ignore any negativity that isn't directed towards your chosen charge.
You're proof that a perfectly good message can be tainted by those who champion it being obnoxious. The people on this board have lots of problems on aggregate, but the moment you say that their stance on women eclipses those other issues, you're acting in bad faith and more importantly, misunderstanding the symptom. And if you misunderstand the symptoms, your treatment will never work - as patently proven by you feeling like the arguments *you* start are 'tedious'. Knowing that, I hope you hang around to get further frustrated. Meanwhile I'll start posting with the insinuation that I'm just like you, and drive the point home that any palatable message can be tainted by the messengers being antagonistic or entitled.
>>447590 You're allowed to criticise them as much as you want, I'm not Postmaster General, but don't be surprised if something that's clearly an unhealthy attitude to have towards women gets called out. For example, if you think it's fine for a lad to sexually assault a lass because he restrained himself from raping her then this will be called out and there were at least three, possibly four, other posters also calling this out.
An exasperated post because your girlfriend has bought 20 cushions for your bed or poured washing up liquid into a Kilner jar for aesthetical purposes is fine, but that's clearly not what we're on about. It's also noticeable that this place can go from being dead quiet to a flurry of activity when the opportunity to have a pop at women comes along.
It's not controversial to point out that certain posters here have unhealthy attitudes towards women, it's to be expected from an online community such as this, but to deny these posters exist would be to deny that water is wet or the sky is blue.
>>447591 >as patently proven by you feeling like the arguments *you* start are 'tedious
I've just said, I don't get involved at all. I don't start them, I don't post in them with the exception of the rape discussion, I stay well clear as I do with most cunt-offs on here. I just call you out as cunts after the event.
Many of you do have that "pfft, bloody women, eh?" attitude a lot of middle aged twats blokes carry about with them. If one of you is a rapist I'd like to meet you so I can slit you open and play with your organs, but I only glanced at that thread and found the subject too grim to engage with, so perhaps I've gotten the wrong end of the stick.
>>447593 >It's also noticeable that this place can go from being dead quiet to a flurry of activity when the opportunity to have a pop at women comes along.
This thread taking the piss out of a man for being directly involved in a killing and posting multiple memes making light of his trauma was fine - but the moment someone says Greta's face looks like a Bo Selecta mask, or that a woman doesn't look professional, or that Andy Murray is on a PR bender (wait, strike that last one) that's not what sparks the activity, it's the concern trolling that follows by saying these people are above reproach or mockery because of their demographic.
>>447593 Nothing to be said about your lack of constructive direction with this? Or the relative scrutiny applied to criticism of women vs men?
>>447594 This is another aspect of the problem, this moral licensing that makes complete knobs think it's fine to post these wank fantasies about gorily killing rapists and playing with their blood. Like great, you're really in the right here. It's not even stated in a creative way, you're just acting like a piece of shit who happens not to be a rapist.
>>447595 Can you not see the difference between taking the piss out of Baldwin for something he did and taking the piss out of Greta simply for existing?
That said, the people jumping to Greta's defence were those crusty hippies who are hypersensitive to anything they see as an attack on the environmental movement rather than white knights.
>>447596 Nail on the head, 'something he did'. I'm assuming >>447597 is so on the nose because it's also highlighting the issue with what you've said.
>>447594 Same thing with 'bloody french' or 'bloody northerners' or 'bloody man city supporters'. It's all a bit twatty but in good humour for those who understand that simply saying something does not mean it's a true reflection of how one feels. There was an interesting episode of Freakonomics the other week which classified 'loose' and 'tight' cultures and looked at trends between them. One of the things with loose cultures as the US is that on aggregate, people who look differently aren't treated very differently, eg compare Japan and tattoos. But on the flip side, people who *acted* differently were criticised as consistency of personality seems to be a point of pride over there. It might be a stretch, but what with the American cultural dominance of the internet, that might explain why people have such a large problem with the idea that ones views as stated may not actually be a thorough reflection of the views held, as such. In that I can make a joke about something horrible without actually wanting something horrible to happen. That's all just musing though, it was a very interesting episode nonetheless.
>>447592 Every website in existence gets a flurry of activity in response to, "So, women, huh?" It's an entire business model. It's a discussion everyone can contribute to, because we all know at least one woman. To discuss government policies, you need to know government policies, and not everyone cares enough to do that, but observations about how men are different from women are universal and always have been.
I agree that nobody would post a picture of a bloke's dating profile to say he's bad at his job, but that's because that's gay, eww, yuck.
>>447600 It's okay mate. We're just fucking around. Is this something that's been happening a while? Do you have a support network in place? If not then you can find a link to the .gs discord in /e/ and pop in if you want to vent, otherwise there's also /emo/. Don't be a stranger, there's help out there and you sound like you could be feeling better.
>>447599 Maybe it's a feeling I should distrust, but practically every public figure hits me as giving you the "something they did" justification for mocking them. If public figures don't want to be mocked, they've usually got the option of stepping back as public figures. "Being a public figure" is something you do, with some exceptional circumstances where it happens by accident.
(This as a general feeling, and not specific to any one case. Once including other factors, some figures are still mocked too much, others not enough.)
>>447609 >stepping back as public figures
Nobody said "stepping back" until a year or two ago. Then Prince Harry and Meghan Markle said it, and now everyone's saying it. They've got to you, man.
>>447610 It's dangerously likely that's what was kicking about in my subconscious. An obvious counterargument to "just stop being a public figure" seemed to be that once you're a public figure, it's hard to fuck off back to a normal life because people will want to know: whatever happened to Robot Jones? So you get "stepping back", or "not quite disappearing, but possibly reducing appearances in the hopes that you'll forget a little bit."
>Attorneys for “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed have suggested that someone intentionally smuggled live rounds of ammunition into a box of dummy rounds before cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was shot and killed.
Good thing whiteknightlad is a lawyer too.
More importantly, I don't understand how they can argue this considering that several safety contraventions had taken place previously, and another article claims it's not her fault because the gun was left alone for 2 hours. I mean poor girl, this must be horrible, but it seems like it's soundly her fault. Is it just that no-one has sabotaged a gun to this effect in decades? Was this a murder plot? That would be both salacious and exonerating tbf.
>>447622 It's not "whiteknighting" to try to throw up all kinds of doubt as a defense lawyer, you big internet weirdo. Go outside and get some fresh air before your brain leaks out of your lugholes.
>A lawsuit against Alec Baldwin alleges that a film script did not require him to fire a gun when he fatally shot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.
>Script supervisor Mamie Mitchell - who called police after the shooting on the New Mexico film set - filed the suit. Her lawyer accused the actor of "playing Russian roulette" when he fired the gun without checking it.
>Ms Mitchell's lawsuit claims that the script called for three tight camera shots - one of Mr Baldwin's eyes, another of a bloodstain on his shoulder and a third of his torso "as he reached his hand down to the holster and removed the gun". There was nothing in the script about the gun being discharged by defendant Baldwin or by any other person," it says.
Actually I'll admit total ignorance, here. I haven't been following the case at all, but my (lacking) understanding of on-set protocol is that the kind of (live?) ammunition used should never even be present, let alone loaded into a gun for filming purposes.
If that's not the case I'll gladly withdraw my hot take.