don't those guys own spin now?
― Mordy, Friday, 20 July 2012 14:50 (six years ago) Permalink
Is Mordy circling the drain?
― camp lo magellan (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, 20 July 2012 15:11 (six years ago) Permalink
Did Anyone See Mordy's List of Definitive Hardcore Albums?
anyway, I used buzzfeed for a while but they kinda have no quality control at all for some reason. I got tired of reading articles by bigoted idiots that had gotten buzzed up somehow.
― Ring brother, ring for me! (Viceroy), Monday, 23 July 2012 22:12 (five years ago) Permalink
― goole, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 14:05 (five years ago) Permalink
That guy, and most of the people responding affirmatively to him, are disgusting.
― hot sauce delivery device (mh), Wednesday, 25 July 2012 14:13 (five years ago) Permalink
lmao he actually describes it as a "challenging tweet"
― price lo matalan (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 25 July 2012 14:23 (five years ago) Permalink
I'm not sure about sexist but it's misogynistic all right.
― check the name, no caps, boom, i'm (Laurel), Wednesday, 25 July 2012 14:25 (five years ago) Permalink
"challenging twit" obvs
― I dont even know that I think this sucks per se (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 25 July 2012 14:25 (five years ago) Permalink
Wait, I didn't mean to say that, I was thinking of something else. Obvs it is sexist as several fucks.
― check the name, no caps, boom, i'm (Laurel), Wednesday, 25 July 2012 14:43 (five years ago) Permalink
just saw the 'camry' ad
what in the fuck
― goole, Sunday, 5 August 2012 17:44 (five years ago) Permalink
― mississippi joan hart (crüt), Sunday, 5 August 2012 18:10 (five years ago) Permalink
Good thing he chose to marry that car
― drawings by teen cultists (Crabbits), Sunday, 5 August 2012 18:25 (five years ago) Permalink
is that sexist?
― the most astonishing writer on ilx (roxymuzak), Tuesday, 14 August 2012 00:23 (five years ago) Permalink
camry couldnt afford kristin wiig so they made a composite of four of her characters & then got a gifted class 7th grader to put the word "cheese" in it
― Fareed Zaireeka (Whiney G. Weingarten), Tuesday, 14 August 2012 00:56 (five years ago) Permalink
pfft gifted class 7th graders would know better
― drawings by teen cultists (Crabbits), Tuesday, 14 August 2012 02:56 (five years ago) Permalink
More of an "Is this sexist?" than a "this is sexist":
I ask because, although I find this fairly amusing, I can't help the feeling that BMW expects us to laugh at the little woman -- when in fact pretty much anyone without significant motorsport experience would freaking out at least that hard.
― Three Word Username, Thursday, 27 September 2012 09:11 (five years ago) Permalink
Well, they're both pretty little.
― die face down in some dude's pool (how's life), Thursday, 27 September 2012 09:27 (five years ago) Permalink
Well, the guy wasn't being an arse, he was informative and never once tried the "This'll make her scream if i do THIS!" biz.
Rule of thumb: "Top Gear" would not do this, it's not 'sexist' enough.
― Mark G, Thursday, 27 September 2012 09:29 (five years ago) Permalink
Guess where I found the video, Mark.
― Three Word Username, Thursday, 27 September 2012 09:31 (five years ago) Permalink
― Mark G, Thursday, 27 September 2012 09:50 (five years ago) Permalink
― Three Word Username, Thursday, 27 September 2012 09:58 (five years ago) Permalink
― Mark G, Thursday, 27 September 2012 10:18 (five years ago) Permalink
It burns, don't it?
― Three Word Username, Thursday, 27 September 2012 10:21 (five years ago) Permalink
I was playing a "School" themed TOTP2 to the girls, I've mentioned a couple of tracks' responses in other threads. Yesterday, this one came up and Alice was all "awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww......"
This morning, she found the above and we all laughed a bit. Then she found the original and played it in full, and we were all "can you stop now or we leave the room?"
― Mark G, Thursday, 27 September 2012 10:25 (five years ago) Permalink
friend sent me this storyhttp://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/living/oprah-woman-work-skills/index.html?hpt=hp_bn11
comment of note: I think the way CNN and other feminist media outlets talk about women it sounds like they border on retarded. They have millions of organizations designed to help only them, numerous days and months on the calendar to remind them they matter, and CNN is licking their carpets every day. If women are as capable as men, why do they need all this help. The gender gap when researched correctly shows that men with kids out earn women with or without kids, and out earn men without kids. Maybe women don't get it that men in their prime are made for workin. Sorry feminists, can't blame discrimination for everything.
― (*・_・)ノ⌒ ☆ (Je55e), Thursday, 25 October 2012 18:00 (five years ago) Permalink
― www.toilet-guru.com (silby), Thursday, 25 October 2012 18:04 (five years ago) Permalink
"licking their carpets"?
― let's have sex and then throw pottery (forksclovetofu), Thursday, 25 October 2012 18:15 (five years ago) Permalink
oral sex probably but it sounds like they don't know how to do it
― www.toilet-guru.com (silby), Thursday, 25 October 2012 18:20 (five years ago) Permalink
ladies lick carpets, only whores munch rug!
...I dunno just trying to wrong some humor from that disgusting and bizarre comment.
― Frobisher the (Viceroy), Thursday, 25 October 2012 18:46 (five years ago) Permalink
*wring, damn Freud and his slips.
― Frobisher the (Viceroy), Thursday, 25 October 2012 18:47 (five years ago) Permalink
re: a friend just gave his car a 'typical black female name', i don't know what to think of it.
― Van Horn Street, Thursday, 25 October 2012 18:48 (five years ago) Permalink
well, what was the name?
― Frobisher the (Viceroy), Thursday, 25 October 2012 19:11 (five years ago) Permalink
the whole explanation is in the 'is this racist' thread.
― Van Horn Street, Thursday, 25 October 2012 19:13 (five years ago) Permalink
van horn honking
― d-_-b (mh), Thursday, 25 October 2012 19:15 (five years ago) Permalink
This is making me sick to my stomach. Idiots still saying "well we don't know all the facts" on the comments page (when in fact, we do, because the case went to TRIAL, dumbshits).
Someone is within their rights to terminate an employee because of a perceived threat to their marriage that is projected by the employer himself, a case in which he clearly made some of the first sexual advances, and this is not gender-bias? Whether it's a right-to-work state or not, this should not be legal.
I hope that employer's flaccid penis is bitten off by a mutant gecko and tossed into the woods, never to be seen again.
― NINO CARTER, Sunday, 23 December 2012 21:28 (five years ago) Permalink
I seriously feel like starting a Kickstarter campaign to help Melissa Nelson fight this to the national level. This is so wrong, and so illegal. “Our position has always been Mrs. Nelson was never terminated because of her gender, she was terminated because of concerns her behavior was not appropriate in the workplace. She’s an attractive lady. That's a crime ladies, looking too good. That's bad behavior. Especially if the kangaroo court judging you is all male. In Iowa, that's evidently carte blanche for firing any woman who works in an office with men. Especially if your choice of clothing is "causing" them to get boners.
Oh, "the couple consulted with a senior pastor at their church and he agreed that Nelson should be terminated in order to protect their marriage". Protect their marriage, my ass. The only threat to their marriage is his hyperjealous wife. (My entire childhood was pulverized in order to "protect" my parents' marriage - it didn't work even in that respect - but I can't help but clench my teeth in rage whenever I hear that phrase used to cover up rude behavior or worse).
In the meantime we can send out notices to all of Dr. Knight's female patients regarding his ethics (hey, why not his male patients while we're at it too?), to alert any potential patients that their appearance may "distract" Dr. Knight who may drill into your gums or lips if he finds your eyes too enticing or your boobs too large.
This is beyond sickening.
― Lee626, Monday, 24 December 2012 13:36 (five years ago) Permalink
I just read the entire state supreme court judgment, which is a little brief as it refers to the district court's summary judgment as shorthand on a few occasions, but it widely cites prior cases. Whether that is in order to clarify a lack of specificity in the law, or due to caution, I'm not sure.
The court's decision seems to try a little hard to be gender-blind -- I don't know whether this is due to a mindset change after the same court was one to affirm the legality of same-sex marriage. Most of the court was not retained two years ago, with only one person remaining who affirmed that decision. I don't know that this means this decision was politicized, but it definitely sets a tone for discrimination cases.
If anything, I think the inability to strongly cite a state law was the issue, combined with a reticence to apply existing law due to a conflict between sex/gender and the other issues on the table. The laws are completely based on an inequal judgment of a plaintiff according to gender -- in the court's eyes, all of the plaintiff's peers were also women. It seems to strongly point to the fact, although unstated, that there could have been a male dental hygienist who could have had the exact same treatment. Was the issue here in that the pervo dentist was attracted to women? Yes. But he didn't treat her differently because she was a woman, according to the decision, but because he acted inappropriately due to his perceived attraction. The gender discrimination laws are not the same as the harassment laws, and this case drew the line by not claiming harassment.
So, basically, there need to be better, more intelligently-worded laws about workplace discrimination and what you can be fired for, but I think this is more an issue of it being a position of at-will employment.
So I'd say: Pervo dentist and his wife are sexist and jerks and their marriage sucks, the state laws could use a tune-up, and at-will employment means this shit happens because you could pretty much make up any excuse and fire someone, as long as it doesn't violate any laws. It'd be a much different case if it was about harassment or a perceived hostile workplace, but that wasn't the case brought, probably because the dental hygienist was slightly creeped out but, in her perception, still had a reasonable non-sexual friendly status with her boss, up until the point she was fired. So, sexist, but I kind of feel like the state supreme court's hands were tied.
― mh, Monday, 24 December 2012 15:35 (five years ago) Permalink
Why was this in state court? I'm assuming the employer had too few employees for federal sex discrimination law to be applicable?
― (*・_・)ノ⌒ ☆ (Je55e), Monday, 24 December 2012 18:41 (five years ago) Permalink
guys there's something I just need to get off my chest
― k3vin k., Friday, 22 February 2013 21:07 (five years ago) Permalink
A new fad on campus I've noticed is the lack of pants women are wearing. Well, maybe not a total lack of pants, but pretty close. I am referring to leggings. Initially leggings were meant to be worn underneath another garment such as a skirt or for a little extra warmth. Yet, for some reason women have gone from using it as a supporting piece of clothing to the only garment they wear to cover their lower extremities. I have a few problems with this.
First off, women enjoy, ignore, or are completely unaware of the fact men, like me, are enjoying the show. Come on! When I see a girl with leggings, it's like I am seeing her naked. I can see every curve, from the slope of the calf muscle, to the rise in the hump that we like to call the lovely lady lump. Now being a ‘leg man' myself, I must say for those who have some of the finest legs I've ever seen, I don't mind looking. You are, after all, kind of bringing it on yourself. However, for the ladies whose strong point may not be their legs, please, don't wear leggings. Which leads me to my second problem.
To the unfortunate ladies who haven't been blessed with beautiful legs: lose the leggings.
They are not getting you looks of affection, if that's what you're striving for. In fact, they are probably getting the opposite; looks of disgust, or guys just simply turning the other way. Guys and girls, whether you like to accept it or not, are judging you.
This leads me to my third problem with these blasted leggings. Ladies you're being judged. I can't stress that enough. For us men, if you look good in leggings, we say, "She's lookin' fine!" The next thought for many of us, if we are gentlemen, is, "Wow, I wonder if she gets around." A good, tight pair of jeans will make you ladies feel sexy and take the judging out of the equation. Most gentlemen like a girl who is a little more modest. She knows she's sexy, but doesn't have to show it off. There are very few girls who have figured this concept out. If we see less; we tend to want more.
If this is not convincing enough for you ladies, let me ask you a question. How would you view yourself if you were another person? Imagine this:
You see yourself walking down the street, wearing a backpack and t-shirt. Then, you find yourself rather attractive, and check yourself out. What do you see? Not jeans, or short-shorts, but leggings, which are hiding nothing! Now what do you think you look like? Sounds like a risky investment. Would you walk around naked in front of the whole campus?
You could have envisioned yourself one of three ways. The first is like an attractive woman trying to show off. Maybe you're trying to get some attention, which, you hope will boost your meager self-esteem. Sadly though, the attention you receive isn't going to boost your self-esteem. Instead it will only tear it down more when you realize people are snickering.
Or, you simply realize that you don't look good in leggings. Congratulations! Now focus on your best attribute and accentuate it. I'm not saying you should become overly expressive in other areas, but now that you have realized you're not flattering anyone with your legs, you can either fix that problem or hide it.
Finally, for the lucky few who actually figured modesty out, you have earned yourself a golden star! Whether you have the most attractive legs in the world, or are simply an average girl realizing that leggings aren't helping the cause, you have learned the most important lesson today: leggings are a supporting piece of clothing, and gentlemen will want you whether or not you're showing off your beautiful body. Remember, less is more.
― k3vin k., Friday, 22 February 2013 21:08 (five years ago) Permalink
who is this guy giving out fashion tips and what does he look like
― wins rules at negative self-demolition (wins), Friday, 22 February 2013 21:12 (five years ago) Permalink
Thank you for this article! As a female, I totally agree that leggings are not meant to be pants, no matter how sexy your body is. I appreciate your male perspective and the fact that you value modesty!
― ogmor, Friday, 22 February 2013 21:13 (five years ago) Permalink
I appreciate your male perspective
Jesus fucking CHRIST
― This beat is TWEENCHRONIC (DJP), Friday, 22 February 2013 21:14 (five years ago) Permalink
oh boy, MODESTY
― and that sounds like a gong-concert (La Lechera), Friday, 22 February 2013 21:14 (five years ago) Permalink
"less is more" is a really confusing moral to this story
― wins rules at negative self-demolition (wins), Friday, 22 February 2013 21:15 (five years ago) Permalink
It's at times like these, the great heaven knows...
― you may not like it now but you will (Zora), Friday, 22 February 2013 21:18 (five years ago) Permalink
ZACH NOLD IS A SOPHOMORE ENGLISH AND TEACHING MAJOR. REACH HIM AT ZACHN✧✧✧@DAILYNEBRAS✧✧✧.C✧✧
― k3vin k., Friday, 22 February 2013 21:18 (five years ago) Permalink
Other ppl judging you based on your appearance is a fact of life; everyone knows this already. The best thing you can do if you want to break the judgment cycle is to keep your judgments to yourself; writing a stupid "I can't help but ogle you unless you wear pants" article is never available solution.
― This beat is TWEENCHRONIC (DJP), Friday, 22 February 2013 21:19 (five years ago) Permalink