- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 586 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
106 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 63337
Airbrushing and low-res images really can be a blessing for some. I swear I'm the fittest man alive (in 480p).
|>>|| No. 63338
They were doing it with women on TV in the 60s (you only need to watch an old star trek to see it). The common man or woman doing it and representing it as themselves in every day life is a microcosm for most of what is wrong with social media. Not because it is a thing wrong with the technology it self, but it turns out as a species we are competitive naracists.
|>>|| No. 63342
I recently rejoined facebook and am surprised to see that even old women have their pictures airbrushed and posed like emo kids from 15 years ago
|>>|| No. 63343
I feel like you and auto correct came up with a better word than I intended so let's go with that.
|>>|| No. 63344
Well it still works. New age racialists are obsessed with proving that their races are the best so use camera trickery to make them look as good as possible.
|>>|| No. 63349
Looks like she owns a lizard
Looks like she has a keen interest in the Tumuli of the Lizard Peninsula
|>>|| No. 63351
I look nothing like her, I'm not even a women or gay, and taken. But if you took me on a date to castle Howard traction engine rally I'd probably put out.
|>>|| No. 63352
Don't know about fully put out, but I would certainly allow my (inappropriate) partner a crafty feel.
|>>|| No. 63467
>The jury in the trial of four people alleged to have been members of a banned neo-Nazi daft militant wog group has been discharged after failing to reach verdicts.
>The 11-member jury had been deliberating for more than 37 hours, but was unable to reach verdicts on any of the defendants. Discharging the jurors, the recorder of Birmingham, Judge Melbourne Inman QC, thanked them for their hard work in a trial that had reached its 11th week.
Imagine working for 11 weeks only for the jury to say "idk lol" at the end, so you'll have to do it all again.
|>>|| No. 63490
It still baffles me that you can go to prison for saying mean things on the internet. The Tory debate today even had ARE Rory mention hateful thoughts in his bid to win a blind date with the Shackleton.
Not that I'd call Harry a race traitor (American isn't a race) but...come on.
|>>|| No. 63491
It just seems a bit futile, given that Americans can say pretty much whatever they like thanks to the First Amendment. I don't see how locking up a couple of arseholes will make a blind bit of difference to the amount of racist bollocks on the internet. It's like arresting someone for pissing into a swimming pool full of piss, when there's a yank over at the deep end filling it up with a piss firehose.
|>>|| No. 63493
i think what people fail to consider is what happens if the shoe ends up on the other foot.
it's all well and good locking people up for hate speech when you're under a largely liberal consensus where the hate speech is dolphin rape and homophobia. it's perfectly peachy right now to consider freedom of speech a luxury that can be compromised for the greater good. but what happens if we find ourselves under a different consensus, and suddenly those liberal progressive ideals are the exact things that will get you locked up? where will you find recourse when you already supported the precedent that freedom of speech can be safely ignored as long as you have public opinion on your side?
you don't have to look far back in time to see examples of progressive liberal cultures falling back in the opposite direction, and seeing that exact thing happen. it angers and frustrates me that people are so willing to ignore those historical lessons.
|>>|| No. 63494
In fairness, I think there's a meaningful difference between political speech and direct incitement to violence. "Dwarves are a threat to the British way of life" is nasty but legal, while "kill all the dwarves before they rape your cat" is criminal. "Hate speech" is a really dodgy category that is open to abuse, but deciding whether someone is encouraging murder is far more clear-cut.
|>>|| No. 63495
Yeah agreed totally - National Action weren't just posting bullshit on the internet.
|>>|| No. 63496
>it angers and frustrates me that people are so willing to ignore those historical lessons.
It comes from an arrogance of the status quo. "The people in the past were wrong though we are right", and it is impossible to convince people the present will be looked back at another time we were wrong in our facts and dogma just as a default, because that isn't really arguing by the rules it is a factual and relativistic nihilism people won't accept even though everything about the past tells us it is the only thing that is consistently true.
|>>|| No. 63498
If we end up under a different status quo, why would they hold themselves to the same rules anyway?
The choice may not be between a liberal world with free speech maintained, and a liberal-turned-censorious-turned nazi world where people go to jail for saying nice things, and more between a liberal world that goes nazi but some annoying people go to jail today versus a liberal world that goes nazi but was at least principled about liberalism while it lasted. I'm not arguing we're inexorably heading that way, just that if we are it's probably of little difference where we stand on censorship - I'd argue culture flows from other factors more than vice-versa. Also, I'd note the case that liberalism could always collapse precisely because we didn't go out and jail popular alt-right type, even if they didn't mean it and were only doing it for the money.
Most historical lessons are false equivalences mind you. The problem about the present is that it's so consistently stupid. People model their dystopia on past negative regimes and Orwell's book about the year Apple released the Macintosh in a futile attempt to prove that the then current year would be nothing like the then current year. The minute you realise that O'Brien's fursona is a Fennec fox and his favourite anime is K-on! is the minute the whole atmosphere of the thing collapses. Rats to the face might be a little scary, but the complete evaporation of seriousness from public life is much scarier and market forces are far more willing-and-able to promote that than they are to promote idle torture. (Though of course, they'll promote fascism if it sells t-shirts and sticks... I guess if I have a point it's that demonetisation beats jail when it comes to the big guys.)
|>>|| No. 63502
>IT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD LOCKING PEOPLE UP FOR HATE SPEECH WHEN YOU'RE UNDER A LARGELY LIBERAL CONSENSUS WHERE THE HATE SPEECH IS DOLPHIN RAPE AND HOMOPHOBIA. IT'S PERFECTLY PEACHY RIGHT NOW TO CONSIDER FREEDOM OF SPEECH A LUXURY THAT CAN BE COMPROMISED FOR THE GREATER GOOD.
Isn't this liberal consensus why we ended up with Brexit?
|>>|| No. 63893
Girls who are insufferable horsey toffs.
sound like insufferable horsey toffs.
|>>|| No. 63899
>"a destructive ideology, designed to control and oppress"
That's exactly what mad girls like her are into though, isn't it?
|>>|| No. 63900
I don't get why the fuck a 15 year old lass is so into this sort of thing. At that age I'm pretty sure my political leanings didn't go much farther than the mantra "don't be a cunt."
|>>|| No. 63901
They get attention.
And at that age you can't tell the differance between drumming up drama, and making a differance.
|>>|| No. 63905
Isn't part of the point of the XR to drum up drama so that the topic isn't ignored by those who are in a position to do something either 'our representatives' or companies looking to score some good press. They can measure their success in how many people respond. Because companies and MPs care about that shit.
This is distinctly different from teens declaring their manifesto for why everyone who doesn't share their daddies opinion that socialism is so dumb is wrong. Measuring their success by the amount of traffic they generate would not be a good metric. As it demonstrates nothing about winning hearts and minds which if you asked them would be the point of those videos. Although again I dont expect them to know the difference.
|>>|| No. 63906
Depends. If raising awareness means inconveniencing people and impeding hospitals then they're going to lose sympathy. Sage because we don't need yet another thread derailed by this.
|>>|| No. 63907
>inconveniencing people and impeding hospitals
Like Brexit or Tory policy?
|>>|| No. 63908
With such a snarky zinger I thought I was still reading comments on the Guardian.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]