In The News

[Eva]

THIS IS HOW IT STARTS!!!  WIMIINZ R TAKING OVA!!!!!111!1

About bloody time.

[Shasvre]

THIS IS HOW IT STARTS!!!  WIMIINZ R TAKING OVA!!!!!111!1

About bloody time.

Period.

[SM]

That's what happens when taking ova.

[Eva]

I have an idea.... let's cut Shas and see what happens;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7K2KI0EkHY#ws

[Shasvre]

I have an idea.... let's cut Shas and see what happens;

[DoomRulz]

Essentially, basic relationship dynamics are being criminalised.

Er, nowhere in that article does it say anything about these activities been criminalized or legislated. They aren't talking about a legal document.

It's anti-violence policy so in a way, it is a sort of legal document. By defining something like not considering your partner's feelings as abuse, yes, that is criminalising basic relationship dynamics. That isn't criminal. It's just normal behaviour that happens in the course of any relationship.

This isn't news, but I didn't know where else to put this. My best mate shared this on Facebook; really got to me.

http://canyouactually.com/39-gut-wrenching-photos-of-the-reality-of-war-puts-everything-into-perspective/

Eh, thought it was emotionally manipulative bullshit expected of a facebook news feed. 

Those images are already devastatingly powerful enough without that gimmicky dressing/ framing device in my opinion.

It's not gimmicky. It's trying to point out the stupid shit people bitch about all day when they have no room to talk.

But it's not all bitching. Like meeting a loved one at an airport or holding hands for example. The images these saccharine sentiments point to already convey this and more without us having our faces pressed into it, which renders the dressing entirely unnecessary. But here they're trivialised by being reduced to a single emotionally manipulative statement. It's the equivalent of someone telling you to stop complaining about being hungry because there are children starving in Africa.

Gazz, you're right. But there are those who treat those problems as if the world is ending because their phone broke down and now they can't text their best friend or something like that. The point of this post was to put it into perspective. The images on top are meant to cater to a very specific crowd: teenage girls. They're meant to invoke ideas of fairy tale fantasies. When put in contrast with war images...the fairy tale becomes pretty meaningless.

[whiterabbit]

They're meant to invoke ideas of fairy tale fantasies. When put in contrast with war images...the fairy tale becomes pretty meaningless.

'Tis better to have loved and lost; Then to have never loved at all. Nope, the fairy tail fantasy is still applicable.

[Gazz]

Essentially, basic relationship dynamics are being criminalised.

Er, nowhere in that article does it say anything about these activities been criminalized or legislated. They aren't talking about a legal document.

It's anti-violence policy so in a way, it is a sort of legal document. By defining something like not considering your partner's feelings as abuse, yes, that is criminalising basic relationship dynamics. That isn't criminal. It's just normal behaviour that happens in the course of any relationship.

This isn't news, but I didn't know where else to put this. My best mate shared this on Facebook; really got to me.

http://canyouactually.com/39-gut-wrenching-photos-of-the-reality-of-war-puts-everything-into-perspective/

Eh, thought it was emotionally manipulative bullshit expected of a facebook news feed. 

Those images are already devastatingly powerful enough without that gimmicky dressing/ framing device in my opinion.

It's not gimmicky. It's trying to point out the stupid shit people bitch about all day when they have no room to talk.

But it's not all bitching. Like meeting a loved one at an airport or holding hands for example. The images these saccharine sentiments point to already convey this and more without us having our faces pressed into it, which renders the dressing entirely unnecessary. But here they're trivialised by being reduced to a single emotionally manipulative statement. It's the equivalent of someone telling you to stop complaining about being hungry because there are children starving in Africa.

Gazz, you're right. But there are those who treat those problems as if the world is ending because their phone broke down and now they can't text their best friend or something like that. The point of this post was to put it into perspective. The images on top are meant to cater to a very specific crowd: teenage girls. They're meant to invoke ideas of fairy tale fantasies. When put in contrast with war images...the fairy tale becomes pretty meaningless.

I don't see these images as deserving of being reduced to such a degree that they simply address the meaningless of teenage fantasy, when they're far more powerful and capable of expressing so much more without that particular framing device. It's actually insulting to the original images and the message rings through as cheap and hollow as a result. There are smarter ways of addressing teenage fantasy/ teenage overreaction without trivialising images of war.

[DoomRulz]

What would you have done?

[Gazz]

What would you have done?

It's not an area that particularly interests me, nor do I have anything of value to express on the subject of teenage fantasy. Though there are examples from others out there. Though not a film I particularly enjoyed, Spring Breakers paints a scathing picture of the material item/ impulse driven teenager. Even the dark comedy Heathers manages to say more about self destructive teenage fantasy by targeting the subject of high school popularity. Both are smarter than the above cheap juxtaposition that repurposes powerful images to actually say less.

[SpaceMarines]

Essentially, basic relationship dynamics are being criminalised.

Er, nowhere in that article does it say anything about these activities been criminalized or legislated. They aren't talking about a legal document.

It's anti-violence policy so in a way, it is a sort of legal document. By defining something like not considering your partner's feelings as abuse, yes, that is criminalising basic relationship dynamics. That isn't criminal. It's just normal behaviour that happens in the course of any relationship.

Except it's not a legal document. I agree that it's pretty stupid sounding, but you're blowing it out of proportion. Nothing is being criminalized.

[DoomRulz]

Essentially, basic relationship dynamics are being criminalised.

Er, nowhere in that article does it say anything about these activities been criminalized or legislated. They aren't talking about a legal document.

It's anti-violence policy so in a way, it is a sort of legal document. By defining something like not considering your partner's feelings as abuse, yes, that is criminalising basic relationship dynamics. That isn't criminal. It's just normal behaviour that happens in the course of any relationship.

Except it's not a legal document. I agree that it's pretty stupid sounding, but you're blowing it out of proportion. Nothing is being criminalized.

Maybe criminalized isn't the right word, but it's definitely going to cause problems. Think about it. If you're in a relationship at this particular university and suddenly your girlfriends decides that your non-interest in having sex the night before was abusive, and it is according to this policy, how is that going to work out for you? I realize not every girl is crazy like that, but it's too risky to implement.

And before someone says, "No it doesn't say that", yes, it does. From the article:

Examples of abuse listed on the University of Michigan's domestic violence awareness website...includes "withholding sex and affection"

[DoomRulz]

http://libertyviral.com/is-living-life-better-as-a-man-or-woman-a-transgender-tells-hisher-story/#

You can call me D.

I'm a 22, almost 23 year old transgender male living in the US. I lived the first 17 years of my life as female, and have spent the last five presenting as male, and I have seen exactly what is different when it comes to how men and women are treated.

[Xeno Killer 2179]

http://libertyviral.com/is-living-life-better-as-a-man-or-woman-a-transgender-tells-hisher-story/#

This is actually a very simple issue; a real man lives how he wants to live and doesn't give a shit about how other people react when it disagrees with the bullshit they've lived and breathed all their lives.

But then.....women also do this....so is it possible this illusory figure, dubbed the "real man" is actually ego masturbation by the clueless majority, and not the whole picture?

Spoiler

[close]

[Vertigo]

It's best to live life as a Vertigo, in my opinion. Though with the exceptions of having money, good health, happiness, confidence and self-respect, admittedly.