|
This really increases the risk, there are far more than 50-70 released into the wild now
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
If video essays do count, I thorougly recommend All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace, if you can track it down anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
Snowy posted:How much of it is about Ayn Rand? I found it on Vimeo but the comments are giving me second thoughts Like one episode looks at her role in chuddy tech bro culture, it's not held up as some shining beacon of what to be But comments gonna comment, I guess
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
Interesting read but I disagree strongly with it. The article, to me, makes several points. - Society is moving towards a more intense standard of physical sexual appearance - that move is recent - that move is not for physical enjoyment or fulfilment but a kind of paranoid and selfish demonstrative act of its own ends - that standard is being met in a widespread way across socirty for those reasons - cinema exemplifies this well and is a fair example to choose - these aspirations are also reflected in other aspects of life, such as home décor I have tried to keep my post below in roughly the same order as the article. The summary above is not in the same order. I don't believe cinema is a good example. As a visual, non-interactive medium, it will necessarily focus on visual aspects of sexuality. Combined with the fact that film producers and promoters have realised children and young teens have far more disposable income and pester power that the youth that came before, films deliberately are targeted at younger demographics. Standards of what is acceptable have also changed. This limits how explicit films can be. The films they reference are poorly chosen. Superhero flicks are not a particlarly fair punching bag to pick. They're aimed at kids moreso than they used to be. I haven't seen the 1982 Wonder Woman, but Superman of the same era had egregious Marlboro advertising, as an example off the top of my head. Superheroes are by definition superhuman - and this is without mentioning that they spring from a mid-C20th purely-visual medium. Their abilities could not be shown through CGI so were inked in bulging muscles. The boys all biceps and the girls all chest. And as more extreme physiques have become possible (and become more acceptable to actors requested to obtain them) it is not surprising that they are seen more on screen. That they have become possible is not limited to cinema - simply look at bodybuilding champions. It was not for lack of desire or dedication that Arnie from his heyday would stand little chance of being crowned Mr Universe now. And the point of Batman is being lone and reclusive. Even in the 90s. Go back to Batman and Robin and see how awkwardly he has to confront Poison Ivy's advances. Batman is a paragon of unhealthy childhood leading to social underdevelopment with the opposite sex. Music - perhaps a better barometer of cultural standards, due to the human inability to shut our ears in the same way we might close our eyes - has become more explicit. What before had to be couched in innuendo is now sung openly. Even raido edits leave far less to the imagination than they once did. Sexuality has not been replaced by vanity if you just listen to the Top 10. Even sticking with purely visual media, television has becomr fsr more graphically and descriptively sexual. Skinemax is tame by today's standards. With smaller budgets, stable subscription rather than box-officr income, lower lead times and a shift of the adukt appetite to consume its visual stimulation through Netflix, television dors not need to pander to the children being bundled into its audience share the way cinema has. TV is now choice, concentrated. Cinema has only seen its viewer demographics dilute and blur. Most TV dramas have what I refer to as "mandatory lesbians". That lesbian sex is seemingly salacious in a way straight sex cannot be - and the relative exclusion of male gay sex - is a different conversation entirely. Yet by consistently writing in Mandatory Lesbians, TV shows that sex still sells, and the saucier thr better. Characters will have protracted sex scenes when little plot progression is found through thrir inclusion. Even when not shown in detail, it is heavily referred to both in "night before" and "morning after" scenes and their scripts. Characters whose roles do not rely on making a sexual story contribution will nevertheless find the scriptwriter has hooked them up and bundled them into bed simply to plesse the audience. Is "fanservice" or "shipping" in a msjor dictionary yet? As for McMansions, I also disagree. Minimalistic houses don't show a lack of aspiration in today's world, they are the aspiration. Whereas the blog author identifies houses filled with cheap features, as someone looking to buy a home it's more often that I'm told, for example, that a kitchen tap is imported from Italy and cost obscene money - and while it looks nice, it isn't showy in the same way as the 90s was. Perhaps in HGTV's "reality" that argument holds water - features on a churn-out TV budget - but then it also rather undermines the article. People want substance not shout, understatement with maximum functionality instead of elaborate extravagance being wantonky displayed. The paragraph on sports reflects the author's social circle but bears no resenblance to the town I live in. Here sports are all about leisure and hanging out with friends. It's rare to find someone taking it seriously, let alone as part of some body image quest. And in the paragraph about how people chisel their bodies painstakingly into temples, the author declares that this is not for self-fulfilment of desire, nor for sexual attractiveness in an increasingly-beautiful dating scene. I must disagree on two counts. Firstly is that earlier in the article they reference a lack of "really fat" people from films that is present in society. Certainly, where I live there are plenty of people whose bodies are temples - but those Cambodian ones that the moneys poo poo all over. It seems people are out there enjoying comfortable, homely sex in comfortable, homely bodies that would not make the pages of a glamour magazine. Secondly, in our social-media culture where life is experienced constantly through a lens, beautification is not an empty act, but the fulfilment of a desire to be noticed, to be "liked" in every sense that word now holds. To be held up as a sexual object by strangers, too, in varying degrees. Not everyone, sure, but others will have their own reasons. And are you going to tell me people beautifying for attention, trying to leverage club entry to the hottest nightspots with their follower count and "insta-fame" aren't out there getting laid, in tge same way we used to after a night clubbing? In short, not everyone is aiming to be beautiful (as the author would argue), and even for those who are, it's not an empty pursuit in the way the author suggests either. Healthy living can result in looking good, but correlation is not causation. I would say that healthy living is what's taken over from the 90s empty beauty and heroin chic. Curves are in. Food traceability and grocery ethics are in. Gyms are popular, but is it hunting beauty or wanting to be able to run a 10k? And if that was not rewarding, if "counting steps" is an extrinsic not intrinsic motivation - then why are so many people hooked and kept reeled in by the gameification? Exercise is not a slog to check some mental box. For many, many people it is a personal goal being met. Compare that to the Hollywood starlets from the article's opening, who openly expressed their distate of physical exertion. To say that people no longer want to be touched - that it is felt primarily as co-dependance or weakness - is a misconception. People want to be touched more than ever, as they live their lives through their eyes on screens. It's just that, on the whole, we have become more mindful of other people's boundaries. No means no. Yes should be explicit. And this is a good thing. I'm not sure how old the author is, but I certainly remember the popularity of army-style fitness clubs - they took place weekly in the local park: outdoors, with others. Councils funded fitness equipment in those parks. Fat camp is not a new invention, and sending a child there is no more vain an act than it used to be for parents. Sports brands remain aspirstional rooted in the same desirability that they used to: footwear advertised by basketball stars was wanted for its association to greatness, not because anyone was under the delusion that it'd help you "train" better. And that remains true today, otherwise why are sports celebrities' marketing deals so lucrative? To suggest that calorie-restriction diets are so prevalant as to cause a general generational lack of libido is laughable. The real public health concern is obesity. I understand that the author references this later on, but I remain unconvinced that it is a BMI shift that has seen an increase in obesity-related causes of death and diabetes. I disagree that nations experience some sort of zumba zeitgeist as threat response. Rather than view a fitness fad as a sign of declining Empire (to borrow one of their examples), rather understand that if something is starting to wane then it must be just past its peak. The British Empire became steeped in military culture; sons of the Empire sent to defend its colonies and promised continued ownership of the world in return. A growth in the culture of fitness iis about keeping what is held, not about a futile fight for relevance in the face of fear. Studies have shown that as people become richer, the contents of their refrigerators become healthier. Better nutrition is a fight to stave off death, to enjoy the life currently led for as long as possible. It comes from a position of prosperity and power and remains a luxury those genuinely threatened by modern life struggle to afford. And while I accept that the Nazis were big on fitness, it is somewhat ironic that the author opines that these nationalistic movements were not about the "joy of strength". After all, "Kraft durch Freude" encouraged dances (among other activities) as a suitable pathway to achieve that goal. In the author's eyes, dancing may be purely performative, soulless, and selfish, but it is at its heart I maintain it was, is, and will always be primarily done for fun. I would return again to the army-style bootcamps mentioned earlier. Fitness was a group activity on a personal level - and yes, on an Olympic level about defeating an enemy. But isn't it always in Olympic competition? Did the USSR, for all its international athletic success and no shortage of "enemies" to defeat, see a trend of fitness in its populace? Or did daily life for an average citizen involve more vodka and cigarettes than it did push-ups and posturing? Geopolitical jingoism and everyday exercise are not, in my view, remotrly comprable. The author then states a belief that the Berlin Wall falling had more to do with children retreating to recreation indoors than, say, the 90s media frenzy over Stranger Danger, public spending cuts that slashed youth clubs from budgets, or the advent of Nintendo and Playstation. I don't buy it. As the article reaches its conclusion and lists the factors it has touted as causes for our societ's supposed increasing asexuality, it misses the biggest point of all. It is not that sexualisation has disappeared from our day-to-day, but that it has become so ingrained as to be indistinguishable. For all that its lack is lamented, except as something to show off and never use, the author is silent on the growing prevalance and use - and extremity - of porn. A cursory comparison beteeen today and back through family photos of our prepubescence shows how even clothing has become more body-focused. One can argue that these clothes are chosen as sexual signalling, but I pesonally perceive it as the adult world's obsession with sex -seeking and getting - permeating down in our choices for our children. The author lauds Pattinson's rebellious masturbation. Yet while that lonley self-love is a solitary silver screen sight, our Starship Troopers were shagging in a tent just shortly after that unecessary "unsexual" shower scene. simplefish has a new favorite as of 08:00 on Mar 10, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2021 06:58
|
|
|
I don't disagree, but there were legal age restrictions nonetheless. My point is that there was more adult content back then regarless of its categorisation. Okay I've had my fun. Thank you if you took the time to read it! Please excuse any typos or hurried and incomplete arguments. I wrote it on my phone for pleasure, not to be unassailably, smugly correct. The fun was in the doing, not impressing you goons by being right. Hm. What does that say about trends of acting in a purely vapid, visible way? simplefish has a new favorite as of 07:59 on Mar 10, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2021 07:19
|
|
|
Brain rot in national-level decision-making olds is a real problem, but then there's the danger (like in Poland) of the change used as an excuse to clean house of opponents and stack the deck
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:There should be a maximum age limit for certain positions just as there is a minimum requirement. Totally agree, but it can't be "immediately fire everyone over 65 then put in whoever you want" as in Poland
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2021 08:56
|
|
|
"Sewage fungus is not what the wine industry wants people to think of when they sip a sauvignon blanc." An environmental problem I never knew existed. It is interesting to see the interaction between big business, local government, academics, and green start-ups.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
"Your pollution is harming the town residents" *$20m later* "What town? What residents?" https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210511-how-coal-pollution-dismantled-a-town
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
This is just the plot of The Jackal, right?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
The disproportionate fetish love Americans have for eggs, I'd have thought you'd have sorted that poo poo out by now
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
Ellie Trashcakes posted:Okay what In US films and TV it seems breakfast = eggs by default and waitresses are constantly asking people how they like them. If it's just Hollywood being Hollywood, that's fine. I didn't mean to derail the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2021 20:19
|
|