George Lucas and Jon Stewart team up to single out Fox News on lying, quick judgments and just being Fox News. Lucas did take a jab on Murdock's recent "can't talk bad about Fox," so fair enough on that.
But wait, how about CNN? MSNBC? How about picking on Stewart's show itself for quick - if not petty judgments? The fact that both Lucas and Stewart treat Benghazi as a "What's the big deal?" way is a testament to their blind adoration to their own political leanings and contempt for non-progressives, or at least the "non-enlightened, cool folks."
The reason I'm fed up with the Fox bashing is because I did it too when I was in university. I arrogantly said it was "Faux" News (how clever) and really ate up CNN whenever I got the chance in my dorm room. I thought CNN was the real deal; oddly enough I was very tempted to subscribe to Wall Street Journal as flipped through its pages when it was delivered to my building (the building I was housed in received subscriptions to various newspapers, WSJ being one of them). Only did I stop watching CNN and paid more attention to Fox did I realize that the previously held belief I held for Fox was more out of ignorance and naivety. It sure isn't the best, but it sure isn't in lock-step with left-leaning networks of the Alphabet Soup. I then noticed that Fox News was, besides Bush and Palin, a favorite punching bag of the left/left-leaning-libertarians. I wouldn't just here Fox News being tea bagged every other month, it was almost every week by the left and its followers.
"Why?" That's what I wondered. It then dawned on me: Fox News was the only station of prominence that didn't, as mentioned before, march in lock-step with the "progressive" agenda as willingly as networks like ABC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC etc. They views Fox as the tabloid station like how Sun is viewed by NYT or how a state university is looked down and mocked by more prestigious institutions like the Ivies or elite LASes. Fox is that news channel.
I'm no particular fan of Fox News, but the amount of tea bagging it gets by "cool, smart" people (the left/left-leaning-libertarians) is rather pathetic, if not bizarre.There's the Palin Syndrome, Bush Syndrome and the Fox Syndrome. It's basically bullying that is celebrated.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
The anonimosity towards American television
because there's not enough nudity.
And as with the "cultural superior tv/consumer" type they also blame foreign cinema & shows not being popular in the U.S. because Americans are supposedly too lazy to read subtitles.
And as with the "cultural superior tv/consumer" type they also blame foreign cinema & shows not being popular in the U.S. because Americans are supposedly too lazy to read subtitles.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Andy admits it.
Poster Andy commented over at Thinking Christian, on an article that is questioning same-sex "marriage" and the view of what marriage is in today's modern world.
So it is about changing marriage as a social institution in order to be recognized as 'equals.' People like Andy see marriage like a green card for citizenship in the U.S. You're no longer an alien seeking permanent residence anymore -- you are an immigrant who can now call himself a U.S. citizen. In marriage's case, it's about the recognition of two people who have same-sex attraction as "legit" -- to make them feel their same-sex relationship is "equal" as the hetero couple.
I saw this coming from two miles away.
So it is about changing marriage as a social institution in order to be recognized as 'equals.' People like Andy see marriage like a green card for citizenship in the U.S. You're no longer an alien seeking permanent residence anymore -- you are an immigrant who can now call himself a U.S. citizen. In marriage's case, it's about the recognition of two people who have same-sex attraction as "legit" -- to make them feel their same-sex relationship is "equal" as the hetero couple.
I saw this coming from two miles away.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Where has the "other" orifice been?
The mouth, that is.
People tend to worry about were the vagina or penis (obviously not an orifice) traveled when talking about past relationships or trysts, and usually slap on the "safe sex" defense like that makes it A-Okay. "Hey, we used a condom! What's the big deal? He/she was clean!"
They seem to leave out the mouth. Make-out sessions. How many faces did you suck and who. Oral. You get the idea.
I think I "get" it, but I don't.
This happened in early 2011, late January to be more precise.
When I was about to enter the airport, my uncle quickly pulled me aside - away from my mom and aunt. A man talk. Yes.
"GRA, don't marry an American girl."
"Okay, Tito."
That's it. We rejoined the women; we hugged, kissed, said our goodbyes and my mom and I entered the airport. The problem? I live in America.
I didn't much of it when he said it to me. I didn't even think about it on the plane ride home.
What did my uncle mean by "don't marry an American girl"? Four years have past and, if I haven't misinterpreted this cryptic request, I think I have an idea what he meant.
When I re-entered the States I met a few friends at a restaurant a couple of days later. It was one of those "haven't seen ya for quite sometime, what's up?" type of dinners. The discussion veered towards women. One of the guys said that American women come off as entitled. Was this what my uncle was warning me about? Since my uncle gets his impressions about America from my mother and whatever he hears and processes through the media, I can see that he might see American women as less than marriage material (of course there will be women who will demean marriage and question its existence, if not applaud its current transformation). To be fair, the American media is over sexual and feeds of off the most embarrassing personalities of those that producers and actors deem as "the masses." With that said, I think my uncle was onto something; he saw and felt something wasn't "right" about American women.
In my experience, the women I wanted to date gave off some red flags. On the other hand my older lady friends got married and seem to be in a happy marriages. What they - the older ladies - had in common? A good majority of them were raised Catholic and continue to attend mass whenever possible; some were traditional Catholics. The women I had feelings for? All but one was a Christian (Catholic, actually). I will address each one by the first letter of their name.
"K" is "half"-Jewish (either mom or dad was a non-practicing Protestant, the other Jewish), smokes pot, isn't bright and has other personal issues. "I" isn't religious though she has an interest in "old" religions in a "historic"/hobby-ish way and was the typical NYC girl (raised in Brooklyn by a rather wealthy mother, no mention of her dad, attended a private school later to attend an Ivy university). She seems rather "easy" as well. "S" was the Catholic, but she admits not being sure if there's a heaven, let alone a god, so I'd say she's agnostic. "S", once you got to know her, would probably be the closest to "marriage material." There are more. "C" is a sweet girl; really is the walking granola type (raised as a vegan, and the only vegan that I know of that isn't a militant in the worst possible way) and it rather outdoorsy. Despite our lifestyle differences I think we can carry a successful relationship in terms of "girlfriend and boyfriend." I'm not sure about marriage, though, since I'm not sure about her religious beliefs - if she has any to begin with. "S2" is taken, upon reflection, is the only girl that I thought really was the most "solid" as a person - besides "C" - but unfortunately she's taken. (Though, red flag with "S2": her fiance has a child out of wedlock from another relationship, and "S2" is currently pregnant with his child. They are engaged, at least.)
In short, most are damaged goods - more damaged than any respectable man can bare, comfort, let alone raise a child with. Many have not questioned modernism nor do they care much about questioning it. "I" practically wrote a paper about the wonderment of what could be considered "good" art, let alone what would be considered art years from now -- I cannot see how anyone can be filled with wonderment about this. The cosmos, yes, but art? At this rate, something simple as a dot would be deemed "artistic"(if it hasn't already) and a naked clitoris in black and white would be seen as "progressive." I still have some hope for "I."Actually, when she described her personal fashion as "feministic" I got a bit worried, if not confused. At first I thought "feminine." No. "Feministic."
Maybe I'm not giving the (practicing) Catholic women a chance - after all, many of the women I had interest in, as written above, were pretty much secular with an empty spiritual life.
____
Dear Tito,
The more I think about your "don't marry and American girl" and the more I think about my experiences and observations of American women, the more I can see where you're getting at.
Love,
GRA
P.S. I am now f_ckin' depressed when I think of your request.
When I was about to enter the airport, my uncle quickly pulled me aside - away from my mom and aunt. A man talk. Yes.
"GRA, don't marry an American girl."
"Okay, Tito."
That's it. We rejoined the women; we hugged, kissed, said our goodbyes and my mom and I entered the airport. The problem? I live in America.
I didn't much of it when he said it to me. I didn't even think about it on the plane ride home.
What did my uncle mean by "don't marry an American girl"? Four years have past and, if I haven't misinterpreted this cryptic request, I think I have an idea what he meant.
When I re-entered the States I met a few friends at a restaurant a couple of days later. It was one of those "haven't seen ya for quite sometime, what's up?" type of dinners. The discussion veered towards women. One of the guys said that American women come off as entitled. Was this what my uncle was warning me about? Since my uncle gets his impressions about America from my mother and whatever he hears and processes through the media, I can see that he might see American women as less than marriage material (of course there will be women who will demean marriage and question its existence, if not applaud its current transformation). To be fair, the American media is over sexual and feeds of off the most embarrassing personalities of those that producers and actors deem as "the masses." With that said, I think my uncle was onto something; he saw and felt something wasn't "right" about American women.
In my experience, the women I wanted to date gave off some red flags. On the other hand my older lady friends got married and seem to be in a happy marriages. What they - the older ladies - had in common? A good majority of them were raised Catholic and continue to attend mass whenever possible; some were traditional Catholics. The women I had feelings for? All but one was a Christian (Catholic, actually). I will address each one by the first letter of their name.
"K" is "half"-Jewish (either mom or dad was a non-practicing Protestant, the other Jewish), smokes pot, isn't bright and has other personal issues. "I" isn't religious though she has an interest in "old" religions in a "historic"/hobby-ish way and was the typical NYC girl (raised in Brooklyn by a rather wealthy mother, no mention of her dad, attended a private school later to attend an Ivy university). She seems rather "easy" as well. "S" was the Catholic, but she admits not being sure if there's a heaven, let alone a god, so I'd say she's agnostic. "S", once you got to know her, would probably be the closest to "marriage material." There are more. "C" is a sweet girl; really is the walking granola type (raised as a vegan, and the only vegan that I know of that isn't a militant in the worst possible way) and it rather outdoorsy. Despite our lifestyle differences I think we can carry a successful relationship in terms of "girlfriend and boyfriend." I'm not sure about marriage, though, since I'm not sure about her religious beliefs - if she has any to begin with. "S2" is taken, upon reflection, is the only girl that I thought really was the most "solid" as a person - besides "C" - but unfortunately she's taken. (Though, red flag with "S2": her fiance has a child out of wedlock from another relationship, and "S2" is currently pregnant with his child. They are engaged, at least.)
In short, most are damaged goods - more damaged than any respectable man can bare, comfort, let alone raise a child with. Many have not questioned modernism nor do they care much about questioning it. "I" practically wrote a paper about the wonderment of what could be considered "good" art, let alone what would be considered art years from now -- I cannot see how anyone can be filled with wonderment about this. The cosmos, yes, but art? At this rate, something simple as a dot would be deemed "artistic"(if it hasn't already) and a naked clitoris in black and white would be seen as "progressive." I still have some hope for "I."Actually, when she described her personal fashion as "feministic" I got a bit worried, if not confused. At first I thought "feminine." No. "Feministic."
Maybe I'm not giving the (practicing) Catholic women a chance - after all, many of the women I had interest in, as written above, were pretty much secular with an empty spiritual life.
____
Dear Tito,
The more I think about your "don't marry and American girl" and the more I think about my experiences and observations of American women, the more I can see where you're getting at.
Love,
GRA
P.S. I am now f_ckin' depressed when I think of your request.
Shonda Rhimes, diverstiy and "realness"
You can't make this stuff up. (By "stuff" I mean the comments.) Entire speech can be found here.
It's not enough to have a "diverse" cast and a "diverse" cast of characters until all said things are accomplished and the roles are non-stereotypical. Oh actors of color, that are female and that are LGBT ... forever victims!
Note: The poster of the IMDb post is a homosexual.
It's not enough to have a "diverse" cast and a "diverse" cast of characters until all said things are accomplished and the roles are non-stereotypical. Oh actors of color, that are female and that are LGBT ... forever victims!
Note: The poster of the IMDb post is a homosexual.
Movies, tv and foreign people.
As said by an IMDb reviewer from London "Although the need for an American version may be unnecessary to many
people it's obvious that the average American, whoever they are, does
not like sub-titles. Or anything that's foreign come to think of it."
This was in reaction to a European mini-series being remade by American tv producers.
I wouldn't be surprised if this the general attitude Western Europeans have the "average American, whoever they are."
This was in reaction to a European mini-series being remade by American tv producers.
I wouldn't be surprised if this the general attitude Western Europeans have the "average American, whoever they are."
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Marriage proposal ... At the SXSW film festival
A same-sex "marriage" proposal, that is.
Why a film festival? I take it because film fests are usually attended by those who consider themselves "open minded" and "evolved" - in other words liberals if not modern day liberals aka "progressives." If you ever went to a film festival in a major city, or a major film festival according to the movie industry, you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I guess "popping the question" at a sporting event wasn't in the plans, like what most (straight) people do. I would guess these proposals will rise in numbers at film fests. The LGBT people need a "safe place" to share their "love" and perversion ... Can't have that as a knuckle dragging sporting event like football or baseball (which are actually planned events by the hopeful, future groom).
Notice that the woman has a lanyard around her neck, which I assume is for workers of the film festival. She said it wasn't planned so she basically hijacked the main focus of the event (movies) in order to put herself and her perversion in the spot light. She also said she and her "girlfriend" have been together for 11 years. No kids (obviously). Also, notice that actress' reaction on stage, Saoirse Ronan, of that of surprise & glee. This is Ronan's first trip to SXSW and I believe to Austin, Texas (she's Irish and lives in England). Ah, the beauty of film fests! Ms. Ronan, and welcome to SXSW!
Why a film festival? I take it because film fests are usually attended by those who consider themselves "open minded" and "evolved" - in other words liberals if not modern day liberals aka "progressives." If you ever went to a film festival in a major city, or a major film festival according to the movie industry, you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I guess "popping the question" at a sporting event wasn't in the plans, like what most (straight) people do. I would guess these proposals will rise in numbers at film fests. The LGBT people need a "safe place" to share their "love" and perversion ... Can't have that as a knuckle dragging sporting event like football or baseball (which are actually planned events by the hopeful, future groom).
Notice that the woman has a lanyard around her neck, which I assume is for workers of the film festival. She said it wasn't planned so she basically hijacked the main focus of the event (movies) in order to put herself and her perversion in the spot light. She also said she and her "girlfriend" have been together for 11 years. No kids (obviously). Also, notice that actress' reaction on stage, Saoirse Ronan, of that of surprise & glee. This is Ronan's first trip to SXSW and I believe to Austin, Texas (she's Irish and lives in England). Ah, the beauty of film fests! Ms. Ronan, and welcome to SXSW!
To exit and to 'out'
I never heard of now Aaron Schock (R-IL 18th District) before; it happens to be he is the youngest GOP congressman (now ex) since 2001. My bing news feed brought him to my attention and I take that his resignation from the House of Representatives is mainly due to questionable spending for his office, other expenses and possible illegal donations for his campaign.
What I gather from quick internet searches and readings is that his main claim to fame, besides being young, good looking, in good shape, articulate and being media friendly (has an active instagram, posed for Men's Health in 2011 ) is his unusual desire to deck his office like Downtown Abbey. I'm an independent voter and I'll admit it (was) refreshing to learn of a politician who was "fresh" and not afraid to use social media to make the Republican brand a bit more digestible as compared to years ago. He also had a decent sense of style when it came to suits - gone were the clunky block suits where the cuffs showed four inches from the suit jacket, or the poorly fitted suit jackets that don many a politician. I take his resignation a hit for re-branding of the the word "Republican" despite his very questionable financial expenses. Schock also represented a district that wasn't a major metro, so I found that also refreshing. He grew up in the area and, being a bright young man, he could've said "Adios!" to his small town and elected to move to Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, the Minn-St. Paul or other cities like Seattle, NYC, Boston, Miami, LA or SF. He stayed.
Along my search to find more about him is that his media attention, besides the lavished office (which is rather bizarre to me, honestly ... Why?), is the left's almost "gonna get you" tone of his sexuality. If you asked me if I thought Schock was a homosexual if you should me a picture of him I'd say "No clue." Yes, he is unusually fit for a congressman his age. Yes, he apparently spent taxpayers dollars on "exotic" vacations, but that doesn't really tell me anything besides he's an idiot for doing so, and further gives politicians from Illinois a bad name. The only thing that would tilt my head is his decked out office (short lived) as if Wes Anderson was called to be an interior design consultant, which - okay - might make me think "Huh. Strange ... "
I'm not sure if he's being given this type of media attention because of his questionable spending and that he was a rising star in the GOP (he isn't a Tom Cotton to the media - see pic below), but I have a hunch the media is fixated on his resignation for all the wrong reasons. The MSM does a good job on keeping track of new faces within the GOP since they might pose a threat to the DNC.
Whoa, MSM, don't make it so obvious that you don't like Republicans. Sheesh.
As I typed in Schock's name in google the first two searches that came up in the drop down menu was "Aaron Schock gay" and "Aaron Schock boyfriend." When it comes to possible search phrases, those that show up in the top half are the most typed in; people have been determined to know his sexuality for some time. Fair enough. He is a public figure that has caught the eye of those paying attention - we are curious beings. This does raise a question, though. Does it matter if the man is gay? Not really. I don't support same-sex marriage, and if he does then that's a major issue, but a person could be for such an issue regardless if one is straight or not. According to his wiki page he appears to be a social conservative on several matters like abortion and did not approve of the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." He also did not want so-called crimes against the LGBT to be included under "hate crimes." Again, if Schock is non-straight that's okay with me. Despite many of my posts being directed at my disagreement and disgust with the LGBT community, mostly the activists, their sexuality does not deter me from any possible friendship that I might have with them. What makes me upset is media's cruel hunt to expose Schock as a homosexual because he is a Republican that opposes many modern leftist pet issues.
If any of what I typed is true when it comes to the media's treatment of Aaron Schock, shame on them.
What I gather from quick internet searches and readings is that his main claim to fame, besides being young, good looking, in good shape, articulate and being media friendly (has an active instagram, posed for Men's Health in 2011 ) is his unusual desire to deck his office like Downtown Abbey. I'm an independent voter and I'll admit it (was) refreshing to learn of a politician who was "fresh" and not afraid to use social media to make the Republican brand a bit more digestible as compared to years ago. He also had a decent sense of style when it came to suits - gone were the clunky block suits where the cuffs showed four inches from the suit jacket, or the poorly fitted suit jackets that don many a politician. I take his resignation a hit for re-branding of the the word "Republican" despite his very questionable financial expenses. Schock also represented a district that wasn't a major metro, so I found that also refreshing. He grew up in the area and, being a bright young man, he could've said "Adios!" to his small town and elected to move to Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, the Minn-St. Paul or other cities like Seattle, NYC, Boston, Miami, LA or SF. He stayed.
Along my search to find more about him is that his media attention, besides the lavished office (which is rather bizarre to me, honestly ... Why?), is the left's almost "gonna get you" tone of his sexuality. If you asked me if I thought Schock was a homosexual if you should me a picture of him I'd say "No clue." Yes, he is unusually fit for a congressman his age. Yes, he apparently spent taxpayers dollars on "exotic" vacations, but that doesn't really tell me anything besides he's an idiot for doing so, and further gives politicians from Illinois a bad name. The only thing that would tilt my head is his decked out office (short lived) as if Wes Anderson was called to be an interior design consultant, which - okay - might make me think "Huh. Strange ... "
I'm not sure if he's being given this type of media attention because of his questionable spending and that he was a rising star in the GOP (he isn't a Tom Cotton to the media - see pic below), but I have a hunch the media is fixated on his resignation for all the wrong reasons. The MSM does a good job on keeping track of new faces within the GOP since they might pose a threat to the DNC.
As I typed in Schock's name in google the first two searches that came up in the drop down menu was "Aaron Schock gay" and "Aaron Schock boyfriend." When it comes to possible search phrases, those that show up in the top half are the most typed in; people have been determined to know his sexuality for some time. Fair enough. He is a public figure that has caught the eye of those paying attention - we are curious beings. This does raise a question, though. Does it matter if the man is gay? Not really. I don't support same-sex marriage, and if he does then that's a major issue, but a person could be for such an issue regardless if one is straight or not. According to his wiki page he appears to be a social conservative on several matters like abortion and did not approve of the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." He also did not want so-called crimes against the LGBT to be included under "hate crimes." Again, if Schock is non-straight that's okay with me. Despite many of my posts being directed at my disagreement and disgust with the LGBT community, mostly the activists, their sexuality does not deter me from any possible friendship that I might have with them. What makes me upset is media's cruel hunt to expose Schock as a homosexual because he is a Republican that opposes many modern leftist pet issues.
If any of what I typed is true when it comes to the media's treatment of Aaron Schock, shame on them.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Listen Ladies
If you sleep around, cheat, have little problem making out with guys/girls you met two weeks ago and get plastic surgery then go pop bottles of Cristal, all the while snorting cocaine/fairy dust and smokin' MJs I won't have a good impression of you. In fact, don't be so offended if I ever call you a dumb slut. Both ad homs deserved. Dumb + slut that is.
But don't worry, I bet your apologists will say you're a very compassionate, intelligent and "courageous" person.
But don't worry, I bet your apologists will say you're a very compassionate, intelligent and "courageous" person.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Joggers and Butt Hurt
Not joggers, but joggers.
Over at dappered.com's forum - called threads.com - a discussion on the worth and usage of the latest fashion bottoms, known as "joggers" (they're really sweatpants because, just by looking at them, they aren't remotely functional for actual jogging) some butt hurt posters in favor of them just couldn't take the archaic notion of criticism and judgment.
"LEAVE MY JOGGERS ALONE!"
There was probably two posts, in total, that outright rejected the joggers on the first page; the rest were just thoughts on "the history of sweatpants," but we can't have that, so poster "wheresbrando" deems it a "melt down" as the sheep follow in throwing the tiresome "conservative" and "insular" cards.
There were some non-brat like posts -
A forum is a place to discuss things - in this case people who have an interest in men's fashion, not just to gather around and play "you're my buddy!"
But the butt hurts wouldn't have it!
Childish name calling vs. condescending and arrogant "little less risk averse." Considering Miami is equally as casual in fashion - you won't see many suits or pencil skirts - as, say, L.A., joggers would be more prone to be worn. Wearing joggers in Miami or like cities wouldn't be considered a "risk" since many of the clothing is dictated by the weather and fashion culture (casual) : light, less fabric, comfortable. A fashion risk would be creating a work outfit around joggers if the work apparel is business casual.
"Bravery" in wearing joggers and being "less risk averse" when it comes to fashion ... In a city that's rather casually in wear to begin with - keep it up "useknifeonly." Don't ever take philosophy courses -- you'd be horrible at them.
That's what the forum is for, and that's what was being discussed, bud.
User "useknifeonly" is just miffed at these "conservative" fashion folks.
"It's those darn precedents that dictate you stuffy types! What a bunch of followers you are!"
Is there still hope?
Nah. Just more butt hurt.
"You don't know me, old man!" Considering "useknifeonly" wrote all that out, I'd think he is defending joggers even if he wouldn't wear one himself. The logic and debating skills is strong with this one.
But aesthetics and feel good.
Of course, there's the relieved exclamation of "YOU GET ME!" in such a discussion, as like-minded person swoops down upon the oppressed and misunderstood hero of expression and love; other exclamations are "Ugh," or "THIS!" generally used by the butt hurt.
All is not lost, not entirely, though.
When it comes to trends there is no logic or explanation needed, just feelings and warm sentiments of "like." Fair enough. No wonder most fashion trends, when looked at in retrospect, are both embarrassing and laughable.
The poster "ryn" mentions statistics. The "feelings" types tend to like numbers, they just use them when it's convenient. Remember, it's all about feelings and non-justification.
Considering Allen Edmunds is a considered a classic (you can say the shoe was a trend at first, that later turned into a staple in the men's fashion universe) and considering that overalls have their history similar to blue jeans, I consider that a poor comparison when one is defending the existence of joggers.
Wow, the horror of someone thinking some trends are "better" than others. I guess everything isn't equal or "whatev." In an industry that relies on trends (things catching onto the public and the public consuming/buying them) and shallowness (body type, skin color, blemish free, height, curves vs no curves) the horror that someone may want to dig deeper than "I like." The horror, "usetheknifeonly." This is a guy is tired of the "better this, better that" when it's the natural thing, usually one of the firs steps to do, when judging a particular article of clothing.
Who knew that justification would be such a ridiculous thing to ask for or to expect when it comes to personal fashion choices, at least when asked? Apparently it's quite rude ... But all those not in favor of joggers, according the logic displayed by users like "usetheknife," should keep their mouth closed. Those in favor? They're just victims of meanness and insular thinking. If someone asked me "Why?" on a certain item I am wearing I'd like to think I'd give them a decent enough answer besides "Cause me like." Know thy self better than the initial feeling of "like."
I'm not implying that joggers do not have a place in the fashion scene - mostly street wear types - I just found it incredibly ironic that those who have an interest in fashion are the ones proudly proclaiming to others to be "open-minded" and "take risks" when they get defensive and seem to be unable to discuss any possible functionality of a jogger.
With all that said and done, I do see a few functions that joggers can be competently used in: lounging around the pad, to-and-from the gym when it's cold enough outside (in fact, I'll be purchasing a pair for this very reason) or maybe a quick trip to the mall during the weekday. I wouldn't advise to wear one to the bars or clubs, or anything that would be deemed "entertainment" or any social gatherings.
You can find the entire discussion here.
What's my process when I pick out clothes to wear? My thinking puts pragmatism above anything else.
1. Wear I'm going. Will it be work, gym, wedding, night-out-on-the-town, social gathering (themed, casual, business casual), running errands around town, outdoor activity?
2. The weather. Is it hot? How hot? Cold? How cold? Will there be rain later in the day? It is snowing?
3. Fit & drape. Not as crucial as the first two, but it's nipping at their heels.
4. How modern it is in style.
5. Color, pattern, texture.
With those reasons listed, I'd put joggers under "gym pants" and "lounge wear." I may wear it when I walk the dog, or maybe a quick trip to the market (big maybe), but that's if I'm too lazy to put on jeans or a pair of chinos
Quickly, what did user "useknifeonly" said about the first reason? "... each of those essentially is just a specific way of dressing that has been accepted by a precedent that was set and then followed by everyone else ... " And what exactly is your point? That the standard of dressing for those situations are meaningless and just "a bunch of rules made up by non-risk takers"? You got a better precedent to offer and to follow? If you do, why is it better? I bet "useknifeonly" wears a suit to a wedding. I bet he wears appropriate work out clothes to the gym. I bet he wears no clothes when he has sex. Wait, is sex confined to the bedroom just some weird rule set by prudes who want to stifle affection and ones own sexuality? People should have sex on the street, the subway, in the classroom and in parks where everyone can see. Sex is beautiful! If you think it's "icky' then that's your opinion, and you're just jealous because you ain't getting any! Don't be a prude. Sex is just sex - don't like it, look away! I digress ...
Oh, and overalls look mightily fine on women depending on how they wear 'em. On men? If you aren't a farmer or a painter (painting dry walls and such), please refrain.
Over at dappered.com's forum - called threads.com - a discussion on the worth and usage of the latest fashion bottoms, known as "joggers" (they're really sweatpants because, just by looking at them, they aren't remotely functional for actual jogging) some butt hurt posters in favor of them just couldn't take the archaic notion of criticism and judgment.
"LEAVE MY JOGGERS ALONE!"
There was probably two posts, in total, that outright rejected the joggers on the first page; the rest were just thoughts on "the history of sweatpants," but we can't have that, so poster "wheresbrando" deems it a "melt down" as the sheep follow in throwing the tiresome "conservative" and "insular" cards.
There were some non-brat like posts -
A forum is a place to discuss things - in this case people who have an interest in men's fashion, not just to gather around and play "you're my buddy!"
But the butt hurts wouldn't have it!
Childish name calling vs. condescending and arrogant "little less risk averse." Considering Miami is equally as casual in fashion - you won't see many suits or pencil skirts - as, say, L.A., joggers would be more prone to be worn. Wearing joggers in Miami or like cities wouldn't be considered a "risk" since many of the clothing is dictated by the weather and fashion culture (casual) : light, less fabric, comfortable. A fashion risk would be creating a work outfit around joggers if the work apparel is business casual.
"Bravery" in wearing joggers and being "less risk averse" when it comes to fashion ... In a city that's rather casually in wear to begin with - keep it up "useknifeonly." Don't ever take philosophy courses -- you'd be horrible at them.
That's what the forum is for, and that's what was being discussed, bud.
User "useknifeonly" is just miffed at these "conservative" fashion folks.
"It's those darn precedents that dictate you stuffy types! What a bunch of followers you are!"
Is there still hope?
Nah. Just more butt hurt.
"You don't know me, old man!" Considering "useknifeonly" wrote all that out, I'd think he is defending joggers even if he wouldn't wear one himself. The logic and debating skills is strong with this one.
But aesthetics and feel good.
Of course, there's the relieved exclamation of "YOU GET ME!" in such a discussion, as like-minded person swoops down upon the oppressed and misunderstood hero of expression and love; other exclamations are "Ugh," or "THIS!" generally used by the butt hurt.
All is not lost, not entirely, though.
When it comes to trends there is no logic or explanation needed, just feelings and warm sentiments of "like." Fair enough. No wonder most fashion trends, when looked at in retrospect, are both embarrassing and laughable.
The poster "ryn" mentions statistics. The "feelings" types tend to like numbers, they just use them when it's convenient. Remember, it's all about feelings and non-justification.
Considering Allen Edmunds is a considered a classic (you can say the shoe was a trend at first, that later turned into a staple in the men's fashion universe) and considering that overalls have their history similar to blue jeans, I consider that a poor comparison when one is defending the existence of joggers.
Wow, the horror of someone thinking some trends are "better" than others. I guess everything isn't equal or "whatev." In an industry that relies on trends (things catching onto the public and the public consuming/buying them) and shallowness (body type, skin color, blemish free, height, curves vs no curves) the horror that someone may want to dig deeper than "I like." The horror, "usetheknifeonly." This is a guy is tired of the "better this, better that" when it's the natural thing, usually one of the firs steps to do, when judging a particular article of clothing.
Who knew that justification would be such a ridiculous thing to ask for or to expect when it comes to personal fashion choices, at least when asked? Apparently it's quite rude ... But all those not in favor of joggers, according the logic displayed by users like "usetheknife," should keep their mouth closed. Those in favor? They're just victims of meanness and insular thinking. If someone asked me "Why?" on a certain item I am wearing I'd like to think I'd give them a decent enough answer besides "Cause me like." Know thy self better than the initial feeling of "like."
I'm not implying that joggers do not have a place in the fashion scene - mostly street wear types - I just found it incredibly ironic that those who have an interest in fashion are the ones proudly proclaiming to others to be "open-minded" and "take risks" when they get defensive and seem to be unable to discuss any possible functionality of a jogger.
With all that said and done, I do see a few functions that joggers can be competently used in: lounging around the pad, to-and-from the gym when it's cold enough outside (in fact, I'll be purchasing a pair for this very reason) or maybe a quick trip to the mall during the weekday. I wouldn't advise to wear one to the bars or clubs, or anything that would be deemed "entertainment" or any social gatherings.
You can find the entire discussion here.
What's my process when I pick out clothes to wear? My thinking puts pragmatism above anything else.
1. Wear I'm going. Will it be work, gym, wedding, night-out-on-the-town, social gathering (themed, casual, business casual), running errands around town, outdoor activity?
2. The weather. Is it hot? How hot? Cold? How cold? Will there be rain later in the day? It is snowing?
3. Fit & drape. Not as crucial as the first two, but it's nipping at their heels.
4. How modern it is in style.
5. Color, pattern, texture.
With those reasons listed, I'd put joggers under "gym pants" and "lounge wear." I may wear it when I walk the dog, or maybe a quick trip to the market (big maybe), but that's if I'm too lazy to put on jeans or a pair of chinos
Quickly, what did user "useknifeonly" said about the first reason? "... each of those essentially is just a specific way of dressing that has been accepted by a precedent that was set and then followed by everyone else ... " And what exactly is your point? That the standard of dressing for those situations are meaningless and just "a bunch of rules made up by non-risk takers"? You got a better precedent to offer and to follow? If you do, why is it better? I bet "useknifeonly" wears a suit to a wedding. I bet he wears appropriate work out clothes to the gym. I bet he wears no clothes when he has sex. Wait, is sex confined to the bedroom just some weird rule set by prudes who want to stifle affection and ones own sexuality? People should have sex on the street, the subway, in the classroom and in parks where everyone can see. Sex is beautiful! If you think it's "icky' then that's your opinion, and you're just jealous because you ain't getting any! Don't be a prude. Sex is just sex - don't like it, look away! I digress ...
Oh, and overalls look mightily fine on women depending on how they wear 'em. On men? If you aren't a farmer or a painter (painting dry walls and such), please refrain.
It's not what you do, it's what you believe in
No, this isn't some inspirational, sappy motivational post.
I'm talking about "crimes against humanity" when so-called progressives voice their appeal to grave injustices.
You can be perfectly polite, concerned and friendly towards those with same-sex attraction or those who don't know what the f_ck they are, but if you don't believe their relationship with their own sex is anything but normal, beautiful and something to be celebrated you're committing a thought crime. Don't voice that "thought crime" if you want to be banished forever at the "Worst Human Right Next to Hitler the KKK" table.
You treat illegal immigrants with respect and look out for their well-being as they adjust to a new life, but if you don't support amnesty, support legal immigration and don't think such a group deserves driver's licenses until the get their green card - and if you want voter ID laws - well you're a xenophobic bastard.
You can treat the opposite with dignity and see them as a vital part of humanity, but if you think that feminism has led women astray to a wasteland of egotistical thoughts and condescension, then you're a sexist. If you think that when women show their bodies in less-than flattering ways, either in dress or by sexual action for all the world to see, that they are slowly and silently stripping away their worth and their innate dignity - you're a Uber Sexist.
If you observe that pop culture and the "underground" scene of the movie industry (see: Cannes, Sundance, TIFF, Venice, tv series) is both delusional, hedonistic, insufferable and insidious, you're a knuckle dragging redneck who can't appreciate culture & arts.
You can uphold the 2nd amendment and see guns as a tool for good, not evil or stupidity, yet you'll be seen as some crazed bearded fool eating Cheetos, all while wearing a Cheetos stained American motif neck bandana.
If you believe that the military should be kept at a medium size, well-stocked with weapons, well-trained and each branch and component prepared for any type war or an attack - be it domestic or foreign - you're a neocon war hawk, drunk of off the idea of killing innocent civilians in remote villages, and promise of dollars that war brings to the politicians and the oil companies.
If you hold social conservative views, well you're automatically dismissed to the desert without any water or food. You're aware that you can't stop anyone from doing anything debauchery, questionable, or hedonistic or degrading -- since you realize that self-responsibility and wisdom must take place when met with this type of darkness -- but no, your membership is revoked from the "21st century" and you are given a "Bronze Age/1950s/Victorian" entrance pass.
You can hold all these views and not cast a single vote (because they weren't on the ballot) or even wave a miniature American flag that was made in China, but if you broadcast them to the wrong type of person you're "what's wrong with the world." You can be standing at the corner of the street waiting for a bus and these would, in and of themselves, be considered "crimes" and "injustices against humanity."
Hmmm. Funnny.
I'm talking about "crimes against humanity" when so-called progressives voice their appeal to grave injustices.
You can be perfectly polite, concerned and friendly towards those with same-sex attraction or those who don't know what the f_ck they are, but if you don't believe their relationship with their own sex is anything but normal, beautiful and something to be celebrated you're committing a thought crime. Don't voice that "thought crime" if you want to be banished forever at the "Worst Human Right Next to Hitler the KKK" table.
You treat illegal immigrants with respect and look out for their well-being as they adjust to a new life, but if you don't support amnesty, support legal immigration and don't think such a group deserves driver's licenses until the get their green card - and if you want voter ID laws - well you're a xenophobic bastard.
You can treat the opposite with dignity and see them as a vital part of humanity, but if you think that feminism has led women astray to a wasteland of egotistical thoughts and condescension, then you're a sexist. If you think that when women show their bodies in less-than flattering ways, either in dress or by sexual action for all the world to see, that they are slowly and silently stripping away their worth and their innate dignity - you're a Uber Sexist.
If you observe that pop culture and the "underground" scene of the movie industry (see: Cannes, Sundance, TIFF, Venice, tv series) is both delusional, hedonistic, insufferable and insidious, you're a knuckle dragging redneck who can't appreciate culture & arts.
You can uphold the 2nd amendment and see guns as a tool for good, not evil or stupidity, yet you'll be seen as some crazed bearded fool eating Cheetos, all while wearing a Cheetos stained American motif neck bandana.
If you believe that the military should be kept at a medium size, well-stocked with weapons, well-trained and each branch and component prepared for any type war or an attack - be it domestic or foreign - you're a neocon war hawk, drunk of off the idea of killing innocent civilians in remote villages, and promise of dollars that war brings to the politicians and the oil companies.
If you hold social conservative views, well you're automatically dismissed to the desert without any water or food. You're aware that you can't stop anyone from doing anything debauchery, questionable, or hedonistic or degrading -- since you realize that self-responsibility and wisdom must take place when met with this type of darkness -- but no, your membership is revoked from the "21st century" and you are given a "Bronze Age/1950s/Victorian" entrance pass.
You can hold all these views and not cast a single vote (because they weren't on the ballot) or even wave a miniature American flag that was made in China, but if you broadcast them to the wrong type of person you're "what's wrong with the world." You can be standing at the corner of the street waiting for a bus and these would, in and of themselves, be considered "crimes" and "injustices against humanity."
Hmmm. Funnny.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
#BlackOutDay + Social Media
#BlackOutDay-
#Self-EsteemBooster.
Then there's Mr. White Guilt (in the combox) -
It began on Tumblr and spilled over onto Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and beyond: #BlackOutDay, a day to showcase black beauty in all of its manifestations.
“In a show of community and solidarity, for those 24 hours, we are exclusively posting and reblogging pics, gifs, videos, selfies, etc. of Black people,” Tumblr user incogneeco wrote. “We want to show that Black History is happening today, right now. That we are all Black History.”
T’von came up with the concept in an effort to showcase a non-European standard of beauty.
“Black History Month is always excellent, but one month isn’t enough to celebrate our heritage and our beauty,” he wrote on his Tumblr, expect-the-greatest. “No matter what your skin tone is, you’re beautiful.”That we are Black History ... Excuse me? Sounds like "We Are Trayvon" or some pathetic call-to-emotions like "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" or "We Are Charlie."
#Self-EsteemBooster.
Then there's Mr. White Guilt (in the combox) -
Saturday, March 7, 2015
This bizarre fascination with "evolving."
The right tends to be rather blunt and not savvy when it comes to social issues. The left tends to shower themselves with pats on the back when it come to social issues. See below.
Calling Maddow "dyke," "cunt"and "bitch" really doesn't help. At all.
The reaction to these hateful words? Saying that men are hurt by lesbians because they don't want them, attributing the less-than comforting names to "unevolved male behavior." I never knew lesbians were high in demand by straight guys. I'm sensing poster "bluetraffic100" think men are jealous of lesbians for some reason? I mean, I feel sorry for lesbians and others who have same-sex attraction.
Calling Maddow "dyke," "cunt"and "bitch" really doesn't help. At all.
The reaction to these hateful words? Saying that men are hurt by lesbians because they don't want them, attributing the less-than comforting names to "unevolved male behavior." I never knew lesbians were high in demand by straight guys. I'm sensing poster "bluetraffic100" think men are jealous of lesbians for some reason? I mean, I feel sorry for lesbians and others who have same-sex attraction.
If Queen Rania of Jordan says it ...
The Jerusalem Post prints the following -
What did the Queen say? As someone who has seen her neighboring countries become torn apart from Muslim extremists, in this case ISIS, she asserts said group are "crazy people" trying to hold back the region from reaching modernity. Maybe President Obama can finally say aloud, to "come out of the closet" and finally admit, that ISIS poses a serious threat to the world. It's no longer "that region's problem."
I'll take Queen Rania's word over pacifists, cowards and leftists that refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth: ISIS is messed up and should be on the US' top priority for "Stuff to Bomb + Shoot."
The Jordanian queen called on the international community to shift their focus away from the religious claims of the militant organization because doing so gives them false legitimacy. She said Islamic State seeks to be associated with Islam in order to give their acts legitimacy and push forward the organization’s recruiting effort.
“They have nothing to do with faith and everything to do with fanaticism,” she told the Huffington Post.
The 44-year-old wife of King Abdullah suggested that the war against Islamic State should be forged by Muslims and Arabs with the international community in a supporting role, as opposed to the current US-led coalition status-quo characterized by air strikes on Islamic State targets.
What did the Queen say? As someone who has seen her neighboring countries become torn apart from Muslim extremists, in this case ISIS, she asserts said group are "crazy people" trying to hold back the region from reaching modernity. Maybe President Obama can finally say aloud, to "come out of the closet" and finally admit, that ISIS poses a serious threat to the world. It's no longer "that region's problem."
I'll take Queen Rania's word over pacifists, cowards and leftists that refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth: ISIS is messed up and should be on the US' top priority for "Stuff to Bomb + Shoot."
You can't make this stuff up.
An extreme progressive vs "traditional" media?
I wonder if you ask Cenk who on a fast break is outnumbered - the person defending or the players transitioning to offense. He'll probably say the later group.
According to Cenk's wiki page -
A self proclaimed "fervent agnostic," married (I don't understand why secularists get married since marriage is basically a very, as one modernist puts it - archaic practice), uber leftie and thinks that the MSM is "traditional." So typical.
When he ventures into national television by landing the 6 PM timeslot on MSNBC, Cenk’s uncensored brand of journalism is compromised as he becomes a thorn in the side of traditional news media; his unwavering dedication to speaking the truth puts him at the very nexus of the battle between new and old media.Not too surprising since it's coming from the Daily Beast and it is Cenk. The man think's some sort of revolutionary leader. In case he doesn't know, the "traditional" media leans left - apparently not left enough according to him. There two main non-left leaning news outlets: Fox News and Wall Street Journal. Then again the left always thinks the world is against them and they were never good with numbers, at least accurately making sense of them.
I wonder if you ask Cenk who on a fast break is outnumbered - the person defending or the players transitioning to offense. He'll probably say the later group.
According to Cenk's wiki page -
Uygur was born and raised in a Sunni Muslim family, but is now a self-described "fervent agnostic".[2][54] In 2010, along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Uygur accepted the "Emperor Has No Clothes Award" from the Freedom From Religion Foundation and later the Humanist Media Award from the American Humanist Association.[55][56] He is now married to Wendy Lang Uygur, a marriage and family therapist. The Uygurs are the parents of one son, born in July 2010,[57] and a daughter, born in October 2012.[58] Cenk has stated that he grew up a fan of the Fenerbahçe soccer team.[59]His wiki page also states that he's an Ivy league alum, graduating from University of Pennsylvania for undergrad and then Columbia University for a master's. He admits that he wasn't always a progressive: He voted Republican before switching to the (D). It also states that he though the GOP became more extreme after GWB's tenure as president. This doesn't make sense because the GOP is slowly turning into (D) Lite. After hearing Cenk talk in a couple of videos I'm left to believe he really had not clue what he was talking about when he made that remark. It's disingenuous to paint his story as "right to left" since he really wasn't on "the right."
A self proclaimed "fervent agnostic," married (I don't understand why secularists get married since marriage is basically a very, as one modernist puts it - archaic practice), uber leftie and thinks that the MSM is "traditional." So typical.
Way too amusing.
When I log onto blogger I use google, type in "blogger," and proceed. There's an "In the News" section that the search engine has highlighting various political stories, either having to do with the site itself or whatever political issue that the site seems noteworthy.
Regarding the subject title, today I wanted to talk about a video I saw on youtube and what was highlighted under the "In the News."
This post was originally dedicated to a video I saw on youtube regarding what girls like in a guy. One youtuber offered her "likes" but I quickly became disinterested and clicked on the posters profile to see other types of videos she's made, since the first video of hers I saw was of her singing - I was impressed. The "what girls like in a guy" was the second video that caught my eye in the side bar of "recommended." As I quickly perused her videos there was another channel linked to her musical one called "Lesbians Answers." I thought "Well that's odd." I later found out that channel was operated by her as well. It turns out she's a lesbian (or at least, according to her story, became "aware" she was a lesbian once she found a girl she was attracted to - later delving herself into all things LGBT).
As a guy, I consider this a huge turn-off. She didn't identify as a bisexual, but a lesbian as I slowly unraveled her story. Is her video "what girls like in a guy" rendered meaningless now? Since she likes girls exclusively since posting that video how does she explain her "likes"? How about the relationships she had with boys before she identified as a lesbian and embraced the LGBT world? Obviously the idea of entering a relationships with the opposite sex didn't repulse to a degree that she made a video dedicated to helping guys in their romantic relationships.
What also makes it more sickening is that she has tumblr page where I found this:
She wasn't the original poster of it, but the fact that she reblogged it shows her "giggle giggle me gay parentals don't know it giggle giggle" mentality. The post currently has approximately 450, 00 likes. Is this phone caption real or fake? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's fake since there were times that feminists posted fake rape stories, and knowing that the LGBT community - especially those under 30 - are seek validation through the internet e.g. tumblr and reblog & like to fill that self-esteem hole. How does a feminists posting false accounts of rape on tumblr have anything to with the pic? I consider tumblr feminists and tumblr LGBT community as one: They share the same insecurities and the same d-bag mentality - basically they blame society for their "hidden" lives and for their own angst. If it's real? I don't feel sorry for the brother and sister -- I feel sorry for their parents.
Now, why "way too amusing"? Because the search for "blogger" under google's engine highlighted this issue today: Well this is awkward.
It's too bad, really, since I thought the girl was cute. Once I saw the "Lesbian Answer" tab my heart sunk and my brain said "You got to be fucking kidding me ... Please, no, ..." *clicked on tab, scrolls through channel* "G_D FUCKIN' DAMMIT!"
Also, what's with straight (more straight before they "came out") girls "discovering" they were either lesbians or bi liking street wear (and tattoos)? It's a broad question, but in my experiences the tomboys or non-"girly girls" that identified as non-straight/hetero tend be into that type of style.
EDIT: Feel sorry for any guy who becomes her boyfriend. I thought the video was about "what I want in a guy" not "why guys do to make me feel insecure."
Regarding the subject title, today I wanted to talk about a video I saw on youtube and what was highlighted under the "In the News."
This post was originally dedicated to a video I saw on youtube regarding what girls like in a guy. One youtuber offered her "likes" but I quickly became disinterested and clicked on the posters profile to see other types of videos she's made, since the first video of hers I saw was of her singing - I was impressed. The "what girls like in a guy" was the second video that caught my eye in the side bar of "recommended." As I quickly perused her videos there was another channel linked to her musical one called "Lesbians Answers." I thought "Well that's odd." I later found out that channel was operated by her as well. It turns out she's a lesbian (or at least, according to her story, became "aware" she was a lesbian once she found a girl she was attracted to - later delving herself into all things LGBT).
As a guy, I consider this a huge turn-off. She didn't identify as a bisexual, but a lesbian as I slowly unraveled her story. Is her video "what girls like in a guy" rendered meaningless now? Since she likes girls exclusively since posting that video how does she explain her "likes"? How about the relationships she had with boys before she identified as a lesbian and embraced the LGBT world? Obviously the idea of entering a relationships with the opposite sex didn't repulse to a degree that she made a video dedicated to helping guys in their romantic relationships.
What also makes it more sickening is that she has tumblr page where I found this:
She wasn't the original poster of it, but the fact that she reblogged it shows her "giggle giggle me gay parentals don't know it giggle giggle" mentality. The post currently has approximately 450, 00 likes. Is this phone caption real or fake? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's fake since there were times that feminists posted fake rape stories, and knowing that the LGBT community - especially those under 30 - are seek validation through the internet e.g. tumblr and reblog & like to fill that self-esteem hole. How does a feminists posting false accounts of rape on tumblr have anything to with the pic? I consider tumblr feminists and tumblr LGBT community as one: They share the same insecurities and the same d-bag mentality - basically they blame society for their "hidden" lives and for their own angst. If it's real? I don't feel sorry for the brother and sister -- I feel sorry for their parents.
Now, why "way too amusing"? Because the search for "blogger" under google's engine highlighted this issue today: Well this is awkward.
It's too bad, really, since I thought the girl was cute. Once I saw the "Lesbian Answer" tab my heart sunk and my brain said "You got to be fucking kidding me ... Please, no, ..." *clicked on tab, scrolls through channel* "G_D FUCKIN' DAMMIT!"
Also, what's with straight (more straight before they "came out") girls "discovering" they were either lesbians or bi liking street wear (and tattoos)? It's a broad question, but in my experiences the tomboys or non-"girly girls" that identified as non-straight/hetero tend be into that type of style.
EDIT: Feel sorry for any guy who becomes her boyfriend. I thought the video was about "what I want in a guy" not "why guys do to make me feel insecure."
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Ad Council's "Love Has No Labels"
Really?
Besides the "coexist" message, it's mainly in support for same-sex "marriage" and to rid the world of any stigma that such a relationship may bring. How did I come to that conclusion? Read on (my comments in bold).
(1) The first relationship was that of a same-sex relationship -- two females to be exact. First impressions right?
(2) Later on it shows two homosexuals with a child -- "love makes a family"/"family is family" card (even one of the guys admits it). Since now you're eased into the same-sex relationship, we'll bump it up a notch.
(3) The biggest, the song "She Keeps Me Warm" by Mary Lambert is used in the background. The moment I recognized it I knew what was the main goal for the ad. Lambert is featured singer in Macklemore & Ryan Lewis' "Same Love."
I then went on their website and read what was written about the ad.. It only confirmed my suspicions.
Also, note that it said "feeling." My Feels. Not reported crimes; not video taped crimes; not even eye witnesses of crimes. Feelings.
As lovehasnolabels.com writes "Before anything else, we are all human. It’s time to embrace diversity. Let’s put aside labels in the name of love." The site even has a test to gauge how bias you are.
"You have latent homophobia and racial profiling! How horrid you are! You scum!"
I find this all immensely ironic since Ad Council's specialty is advertisements, which focuses on ones psychology in order to create simple, easy to consume ads to sway the population into thinking a certain way. It's really no different than political smearing when campaigns are in session military ads. They talk about the latent prejudices -- something psychological -- and want us (the so-called bigots) to confront them and to buy into the "love has no labels" mantra using their own concocted advert to manipulate our psychology.
Besides the "coexist" message, it's mainly in support for same-sex "marriage" and to rid the world of any stigma that such a relationship may bring. How did I come to that conclusion? Read on (my comments in bold).
(1) The first relationship was that of a same-sex relationship -- two females to be exact. First impressions right?
(2) Later on it shows two homosexuals with a child -- "love makes a family"/"family is family" card (even one of the guys admits it). Since now you're eased into the same-sex relationship, we'll bump it up a notch.
(3) The biggest, the song "She Keeps Me Warm" by Mary Lambert is used in the background. The moment I recognized it I knew what was the main goal for the ad. Lambert is featured singer in Macklemore & Ryan Lewis' "Same Love."
I then went on their website and read what was written about the ad.. It only confirmed my suspicions.
98% of thinking is done in our subconscious mind
Most Americans agree that people should be treated respectfully and fairly. Yet many people in the United States still report feeling discriminated against. For example, one in five LGBT people report feeling there is little or no acceptance of their community. Six in ten Latinos report that discrimination is a major problem and a majority of African Americans report that they are not satisfied with the way they are treated in society.
The reason might be that we're actually discriminating unintentionally--some call this implicit bias. Implicit bias influences how we treat people and how we interact with each other. More broadly, it can perpetuate disparities by impacting someone's ability to find a job, secure a loan, rent an apartment or get a fair trial. To end bias, we need to become aware of it. And then we need to do everything within our power to stop it in ourselves, others, and institutions.
The Diversity & Inclusion campaign encourages everyone to reconsider the biases that we don't even know we have. Visit lovehasnolabels.com to find ways to challenge bias in themselves and others.I'll add another reason - (4) The homosexual couple with the kid is front and center on Ad Council's site. The people that usually fall into the "coexist" come later. Clever. Real clever and insidious.
Also, note that it said "feeling." My Feels. Not reported crimes; not video taped crimes; not even eye witnesses of crimes. Feelings.
As lovehasnolabels.com writes "Before anything else, we are all human. It’s time to embrace diversity. Let’s put aside labels in the name of love." The site even has a test to gauge how bias you are.
"You have latent homophobia and racial profiling! How horrid you are! You scum!"
I find this all immensely ironic since Ad Council's specialty is advertisements, which focuses on ones psychology in order to create simple, easy to consume ads to sway the population into thinking a certain way. It's really no different than political smearing when campaigns are in session military ads. They talk about the latent prejudices -- something psychological -- and want us (the so-called bigots) to confront them and to buy into the "love has no labels" mantra using their own concocted advert to manipulate our psychology.
Youtube #DearMe
Self-esteem project. #GenerationPathetic
Now, before I watched it I thought to myself "Hmmm, let me predict the pearls of 'wisdom' that shall be said ... " This is what I came up with:
Be who you are.
Don't be ashamed of what you are (mostly geared towards LGBT).
Don't follow the crowd; be an individualist.
Be Crazy.
Be a Freak.
Follow your dreams.
Only you decide what is right and wrong.
Follow your heart.
Love is all you need.
Love is love.
Then I watched it. It's just a self-esteem/"YOU GO GIRL GO GET IT!" project. Not one single male.
Some were mentioned - others were decent enough advice. In the context that I'm thinking of the advice and what the youtubers put them in is completely different. 100% these are used in a modern context - to reject traditionalism and conservatism.
There was one comment that I did like, as I skimmed over the combox -
Other comments that got the most votes -
and (transgender)
one more -
Now, before I watched it I thought to myself "Hmmm, let me predict the pearls of 'wisdom' that shall be said ... " This is what I came up with:
Be who you are.
Don't be ashamed of what you are (mostly geared towards LGBT).
Don't follow the crowd; be an individualist.
Be Crazy.
Be a Freak.
Follow your dreams.
Only you decide what is right and wrong.
Follow your heart.
Love is all you need.
Love is love.
Then I watched it. It's just a self-esteem/"YOU GO GIRL GO GET IT!" project. Not one single male.
Some were mentioned - others were decent enough advice. In the context that I'm thinking of the advice and what the youtubers put them in is completely different. 100% these are used in a modern context - to reject traditionalism and conservatism.
There was one comment that I did like, as I skimmed over the combox -
I don't think Google would be "burned at the stake" -- it's that Google would most likely would never attempt this for the men. If it were to do such a thing, there would be some sort of backlash, enough to make headlines that would more than click bait, and someone on the exec board would issue a formal apology.Let me clarify for all the feminist out there bitching that men are just whining because they are not the center of attention it is because we are not the center of attention it is because the internet is flooded full of these videos to help women and few to none to help men. If Google where to do something like this for mens day Google would be burned at the stake.
Other comments that got the most votes -
and "How about some older ladies with a little more perspective instead of a bunch 20 somethings who spent more time applying their make-up than they did on the video,"Where is the guys
#Noequality
and (transgender)
While I think this is a great project, I'm wondering why it has to be exclusive for women to do it? Just because it's women's day?
No, you're a women THINKING you're a man. If I were the person reviewing the submitted videos for #DearMe I'd automatically put you in the female videos. You got a a vagina and breasts, no matter small those breasts may be. You got tits that produce milk for babies. Men don't.I am a man, but I was born anatomically a woman. I went through the same struggles and still do because I don't pass well as a man. We should be working to inspire humans as a whole to be themselves.
one more -
Because society is just one uber patriarchy forcing women in boxes ... Sure ... Oh the horror! Oh the stifling atmosphere of non-creativity and squares! Bold: Yes, I do see where you're going but many of these self-esteem projects are geared towards women or the "rebel with freaky hair" types. Also, be careful about the "We're different sexes so we can't give the other sex advice" -- that sort of blows up what the transgender said about "born anatomically a woman." I mean, is it based on biology now or based on #feelings? I'm confused. Italics: A very common tactic used. It, general, means: Stop voicing opinions/stop-discussion so to let the combox be devoid of anything critical.Why aren't all the men commenting in a negative way about how this is sexist make videos like this? What is stopping you from making serious content that shows that you don't have to be how society makes you feel? Just because women are giving other women advice (because believe it or not, we don't know what it's like to be a man and never will) doesn't mean anything against men, in this instance it's not about you because we can't speak on behalf of you. Stop commenting and get creating.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Entertainment should be for entertainment, not for inspirational feelings
Every time an entertainer (actors, dancers, singers) says "Be authentic; be true to yourself" I can't help but realize that the entertainment business is filled with very insecure people. Then people, mostly their fans, clap and agree like trained seals.
People must be desperate if they look to entertainers for anything but entertainment.
People must be desperate if they look to entertainers for anything but entertainment.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)