AlbieQuirky posted:

I miss Titanic Man.

Birb Katter posted:

Drop "Christmas is a time of year where people set up nativity scenes to celebrate a Middle Eastern family searching for refuge" in there somewhere if you can manage to swing it around to xmaschat.

brain.centipedes posted:

Nuebot posted:

I think green just misread it as a sort of "I'd rather someone nice and into jesus, than someone who's hot" first then red commented again for clarification.

Elderbean posted:

Guy just shits up my friends thread with all his dumb conservative talking points.

Fathis Munk posted:

OK yeah that does shed a wholly different light on the whole affair.

I still maintain that even if a guy is lolbertarian, falsely attributing anti semitic and nazi like cartoons to him is a lovely thing to do.

quote:

At the time the presenter of much of the internet and social media, but with a baptism of fire he soon managed to quell the original slander that he was dead.

But, new rumours persisted, known as drive-bys, where verbal assailants fabricate falsehoods on sites like the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia.

Dave believes he lost a job with a new children’s channel due to his online record presence wrongly stating he worked for Babestation, the late night Freeview channel featuring topless women.

More recently it was put about he had a mental break down at a children’s party and was seen running through the streets throwing gunge at people.

He has even been banned from social media site MySpace after someone pretending to be him claimed he was the imposter

goose fleet posted:

A single mother making a loving quarter million a year has to pay a little over three thousand more dollars and this is portrayed as a Bad Thing while the media finds it OK to mock a single mother on food stamps struggling to pay her bills and rent and tries to portray her as some welfare queen living the dream on taxpayer money and somehow this is all Just and Right

TinTower posted:

The whole "women are scared of clapping" poo poo is bullshit. It's more like "some people here have sensory disorders which sharp and loud noises can exacerbate, and we'd like to not make them too uncomfortable".

You're not allowed to clap in the House of Commons, but nobody's calling David Cameron a SJW (but they are calling him a pig-fucker).

Then again, they probably see wheelchair ramps as proof of political correctness, so.

EvilGenius posted:

Change.org email me petitions every now and again, and my God are some of them retarded.

https://www.change.org/p/simon-robe...urated_trending

TLDR - Boots' pricing is sexist because women's products are more expensive than the male equivalent!

No poo poo, that's because women are willing to pay more, not because the CEO hates women (who are the majority of his customers). Read a little into market forces before getting on your high horse. If women want to pay more for pink razors, then people are going to sell overpriced pink razors.

quote:

These are hard times to be a female shopper. Whether you spend your money on pens, razors, designer fragrance or plain old Marks & Spencer vests, you will pay a surcharge just for being a woman. In theory, men and women enter stores equal – but, in practice, the shelves each gender browses, the aisles each chooses, lead them down very different paths to the cash register. Products marketed specifically at women routinely cost more than similar or identical products marketed at men.

A pack of 10 twin-bladed men’s razors by Bic is on offer at £1 at tesco.com, while Bic’s pack of 8 twin-bladed lady razors is on offer at £2.

The extent of the discrepancies is staggering: an analysis of hundreds of products by the Times found that where equivalent products were priced differently, they cost 37% more for women. It is hard to imagine, for instance, why a single-blade razor made by the same manufacturer should cost more to produce in pink than orange. They are made by Bic, which also charges more for its Bics for Her biros than its Bics for everyone, a strategy that has seen the Bics for Her brand repurposed as the title of comedian Bridget Christie’s standup show. I’m not saying that the French penmaker is sexist, but it once advertised its feminine, pastel-barrelled writing tools with the slogan “Look like a girl / Act like a lady / Think like a man / Work like a boss”.

Women have long worn men’s 501s. Levi’s original version starts at £75 for men in a mid-blue wash, and £85 for women.

Factor in the tampon tax and the pay gap (19.1% across all workers in the UK) and it becomes clear that, whenever they reach a till, women are effectively paying three times, once in their salaries, once in their spending, and once in a surcharge on any women-directed products in their shopping baskets. “We earn less and we’re charged more. How many more times do you want women to be ripped off?” asks Sam Smethers, chief executive of the Fawcett Society.

A man can moisturise with Clarins cream for £29/50ml. A woman using the same brand will pay £44/50ml.

So, what to do? Women could buy Gillette’s sensitive shaving gel for men, instead of its Satin Care sensitive shaving gel for women and save 50p. The downside is that it will make you smell like a cheap man. Is it too radical to look for a fragrance-free shaving gel? Or to expect companies to market a unisex line? After all, it works at the higher price points for brands such as Dermalogica and REN. Smethers thinks the equivalent of a supermarket value brand – plain-speaking, no-frills packaging – could work for skin and bodycare products. “There is a massive opportunity here to create gender-neutral lines – why not? I think that’s a really interesting proposition for retailers.”

A plain 100% cotton women’s vest costs £6 at M&S (if you can find it among all the overly ornate ones), while men get three pure cotton equivalents for £12.50.


Fashion stylists have often shopped in the men’s department for women’s basics – plain-cut vests or T-shirts, sweatshirt and sweaters, watches – on the grounds of taste rather than price. Manufacturers routinely overdesign products for women, complicating necklines, adding unwanted tucks or tat, embellishing packaging. “We carry that with us throughout our lifetime,” Smethers says. “We create this norm that a women’s product has got to have extra presentational baubles on it, and then it can be charged more for. This is a massive issue that goes over generations of women.”

This Kurve balance bike by Kiddimoto looks a bargain at £49.99, compared to the flowery Kurve model aimed at girls

Girls start paying for the differences at an early age – it costs an extra £10 in Halfords for a Kiddimoto balance bike decorated with flowers rather than skulls. Surely it is time to end the tyranny of pink, which makes girls pay by delimiting their tastes according to gender stereotypes, and then charges their parents for the privilege.

Tom Ford’s Black Orchid eau de toilette spray costs £64 at mrporter.com and £75 at its sister company, netaporter.com.

Why women are perceived to have more fanciful taste baffles me, but these design discrepancies make the surcharge legal, as does the fact that these products are available to men to buy, too (unlike cheap women’s car insurance, which was ruled prejudicial to men, although somehow men’s haircuts are permitted to undercut women’s). Sometimes, even where products are marketed as unisex, price discrepancies remain. Who can say, for instance, why a Tom Ford eau de toilette should cost £75 for 50ml at Net-a-Porter and £64 for 50ml at Mr Porter, the women’s and men’s luxury shopping sites both owned by the Yoox Net-a-Porter Group? (Not Net-a-Porter, who wouldn’t comment at short notice.) Or why a woman logging on to Nike’s website to buy football boots would face a selection starting at £125, while her male counterpart can buy a pair for as little as £29.99? Pity women footballers, who must take the social and commercial one-two of being taunted for their lack of femininity, and then made to pay girls’ prices.

Nike’s studs aimed at women have a starting price of £125. Its range aimed at men starts at £29.99 in the sale.

The problem isn’t limited to Britain. In December, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs released a study of 800 nearly identical products with male and female versions. The report, entitled From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer, found that, on average, female versions cost 7% more than the male.

Women, the shops are laughing up their sleeves at you! It is time to make careful choices about where and how to spend that hard-earned, partially docked money, to find a way to make the sexists pay. (No Bic was used in the writing of this article.)

grittyreboot posted:

She was the team leader for it, which people on Imgur are actually holding against her because she didn't do everything entirely by herself. Because being a woman in a leadership position in a STEM field in the 60's was not a big deal at all.

quote:

Programme 1 - LEO the Lyons Computer

The first programme starts in the Piccadilly café which is still identifiable as the first Lyons Teashop ever opened, at the end of the 19th Century. It moves on to Hammersmith where a Lyons historian describes how the great Cadby Hall factory complex needed an army of clerks to run it. LEO veterans explain how the company that believed it could do anything decided to build a business computer, and did so with considerable success. A former Teashops manageress recalls what a difference it made to her work when all the daily orders were computerised. And one of the telephonists who typed her orders into LEO remembers the excitement of "feeding this marvellous machine". It was so successful that Lyons did jobs for other companies and the government, like working out the new tax tables on the night of the Chancellor's Budget. It also calculated the distance between every one of British Rail's 5000 stations and every other one. But the name died in the 60s, beaten by the perception that a catering company couldn't build computers, and the disorganisation of Britain's computer industry.

quote:

Travis343 posted:

Because that's a lovely, insane thing to say when a friend tells you they've been raped?

zakharov posted:

Unless you've been raped you have no idea what you're talking about. The idea of how victims "should" behave ruins many cases.

"So you were raped but you just went home and didn't go to the cops after being severely traumatized? HOW DO YOU WE KNOW YOU'RE NOT JUST A SLUT"

poptart_fairy posted:

Of all the things to get angry about with the Daily Mail...

EL BROMANCE posted:

Nobody is angry at the Daily Mail for it, they're an accepted part of British life.

Eponine posted:

If you're insulting someone's appearance in a conversation, you're past the point of having an intelligent, well thought-out discussion free of prejudices.

quote:

The PM also launched a seething personal attack on Corbyn that was completely uncalled for. After a Labour backbencher heckled him about his mother signing a petition opposing cuts to children’s centres, Cameron said “Ask my mother? I think I know what my mother would say. I think she’d look across the dispatch box and she’d say: put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the national anthem.” The hordes of backbenchers behind him descended into uncontrollable jeering and guffawing which seemed to go on for an eternity, not helped by the fact that Speaker Bercow failed to intervene.

Lottery of Babylon posted:

The new facebook emoji reactions will further the dissolution of all emotion in our sterile interactions. Love becomes a pictogram. This is how it starts.

Corley posted:

Red is an acquaintance of mine who posts "woe is me, I'm single" nice guy stuff and rants about his ex all the time. He changed his profile picture today and this masterpiece ensued.



He's been posting flirty stuff on my statuses lately, lucky me.

Byzantine posted:

There were a couple documentaries about if humans vanished. Spoiler: things go really bad really fast without our hand on the controls of our technology.

Lottery of Babylon posted:

Feeding the homeless is exactly the same as feeding wild beasts. At first, you might feel virtuous about giving bread to a few stray mammals. But, soon, your good intentions have resulted in the arrival of hundreds of additional creatures – all making GBS threads and squawking for a handout. When you finally run out of food, the animals will always start to attack you. Just as you don’t feed wildlife in the wildness, you don’t feed hominids in the metropolis.

There is no government program that could ever eliminate privation. There is no scheme to redistribute wealth that would ever succeed. There is no welfare plan would ever work. No politician is going to craft a piece of legislation that would do the trick

But me – I got this solution to poverty. Absolutely certain to be effective. Guaranteed to eliminate the problem 100% of the time. Want to know what it is?

Let the poor starve. Let the fuckers die.

If you can’t eliminate the ailment, you can eradicate the source of the disease. The answer is to let nature take its course.

Carbon Thief posted:

Something to do with the Ian Watkins case?

quote:

Steps star H wins public apology after being wrongly pictured as paedophile
Ian Watkins, H from Steps, has won a public apology and undisclosed damages after a website wrongly used his picture when reporting the sexual abuse carried out by Ian Watkins, the former Lostprophets front man


Ian Watkins, from pop band Steps, has received a public apology at the High Court after his picture was mistakenly used by a celebrity news website to report the guilty pleas of the Lostprophets singer who shares his name.
A judge in London heard that the 37-year-old musician and actor, also known as Ian "H" Watkins or "H" from the band Steps, had already been "receiving abuse as a result of people confusing the two Ian Watkins" before the error over the photograph was made.
He received an apology today from E! Entertainment Television, a US company which operates a television channel E! and website E! Online, covering celebrity news.
His solicitor John Reid told the judge that the defendant, E! Entertainment Television, "reported the guilty plea of Ian Watkins of the Lostprophets in an article on E! Online", adding: "However, the defendant mistakenly included a photograph of the claimant, Ian 'H' Watkins of Steps, instead of Ian Watkins of the Lostprophets."
He said: "The error quickly came to the attention of the defendant, which promptly replaced the photograph with the correct one."


No details of a confidential settlement for libel were given in court, and the Steps singer was not at the hearing.
The judge heard he had been "deeply upset" after his image was mistakenly used when details of child sex abuse charges against Watkins were reported.
Watkins, who was the lead singer of the Lost Prophets, was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Wednesday for 13 offences, including the attempted rape of an 11-month-old baby boy and the abuse of a baby girl. The judge said his “horrific” offences “plumbed new depths of depravity”.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is to look into concerns that the police forces in South Wales, South Yorkshire and Bedfordshire had not responded appropriately to previous allegations made against the singer.

TheKennedys posted:

Counterpoint:

snergle posted:

whats the story behind :cloe: anyways?

captainOrbital posted:

OMG that is the cutest thing I've ever seen; those two girls are adorbs.

And, yeah, I noticed like a minute in, wait, why isn't she buckled?

Scratch Monkey posted:

What is the story with this dumb thing? I've seen it before and I know there has got to be more to it than "I like the way it looks"

Lottery of Babylon posted:

EXCEPT that the state is single-handedly responsible for providing free contraception, abortion (you go girl, keep making bad choices with no consequences at all)
*snip*
Without the state, we simply would not have single mothers, because most of them would starve to death along with their bastard spawn.

Lblitzer posted:

I wouldn't trust a woman named Grandma Useful Tip

MAKE NO BABBYS posted:

Who loving cares? Dude is still creeping on underage girls and sexually harassing them because of THEIR CLOTHING. Ew.

Fathis Munk posted:

I... It's not like vaccines are mystery bags. I'm pretty sure you can look up how they are made, how they work, what's in them and what the adverse effects are.

You want to know what the MMR vaccine is ?

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM123789.pdf

loving buckle up and read that poo poo and the cited papers and voila you'll loving know. Of course you need to know your biology or be willing to put actual effort into it you loving piece of poo poo.

After all these years on the internet, anti-vax people are the only thing that still really makes me mad . Probably because I'm studying virology and I can tell you, those little shits run laps around our immune defenses while laughing. They are thoughtless, lifeless systems that are made to infect and spread. If they ever fail to keep up, they disappear.

Judge Tesla posted:

That's his kids tv career gone, if he still does it.

quote:

Death. We know we cannot escape it. Most of us just ignore its impending approach.

But Dave Benson Philips has had to confront it head on, and bizarrely insist to the world he’s still alive.

The children’s television star, who presented the BBC hit Get Your Own Back for 14 years, was widely accepted to be dead in 2009 after a malicious rumour was started online that he had died in a car crash.

“The distress it caused was unparalleled,” said Dave, a West Sussex resident known in Horsham as the face of town centre events, including the Rotary Club’s Pancake Races, Children In Need and Kidz Stuff festival.

“I remember my sisters calling up and they didn’t get off the phone until they could hear my voice.

“My mum heard about it second hand - she was at work at the hospital, and someone said they were sorry her son had been killed in a car crash.”

The malicious falsehood caused shows to be cancelled, and while Dave’s wife received flowers and condolences a local radio station was minutes away from broadcasting an obituary.

“It was taken very seriously and it got dark, very dark indeed,” said Dave.

I had heard rumours of the internet slanders perpetrated against the enthusiastic entertainer, but it was not until Dave revealed more that I realised the true extent of the horrible experience.

Targeted at a genuinely lovely man who has dedicated a lifetime to making children laugh, the unfortunate episode brought the vagaries and danger of the internet age into sharp relief.

Just a few well placed and well timed untruths turned a dream career into a living nightmare.

Born in London, with a flair for flamboyancy, but bullied at school, Dave is a humble person when not in character.

“I am still surprised it happened,” he said, reflecting on his time dominating the children’s TV schedule with gunge and fun.

“Maybe one day I will wake up from a very long and elaborately lucid dream that I have been having for the past 48 years?”

But too many people have enjoyed the laughter of Dave’s dream career to pinch it from him – it is very real, as millions of children who grew up in the 90s will testify.

And as a children’s entertainer with Pontyns and Haven, he broke new ground.

“I was the first black blue coat they had ever had,” he said, going on to recollect a frosty reception he received in north Wales in the late 1980s.

“If you’ve ever seen the film Blazing Saddles you’ll know the arrival of the black sheriff, well, it was all of that.

“I remember people asking who are you, and I said ‘I’m the new children’s entertainer’ - and it was like, no you’re not!”

In spite of some of the adults’ attitudes 20 years ago, the children loved Dave’s more manic approach to entertainment, and he was idolised by a generation of holiday campers, as demonstrated by his best letter of complaint.

“A father came home and was horrified to see their son covered in shoe polish or something brown pretending to be me!” said Dave with an infectious incredulity followed by a hearty guffaw.

“This man has to go, they said. I laugh at it now but at the time it was quite harsh.

“But I won them over and made some fantastic friends there.”

Nevertheless, go Dave did, but only because holiday makers wrote a letter to the BBC recommending the colourful character for television.

Soon, Dave was the star presenter of Get Your Own Back - a programme that caught the imagination of children nationwide.

“It was an extraordinary show with a very simple premise.

“If you are a child with a grown-up who gets on your nerves, get them on the show, and we’ll humiliate them and cover them in gunge,” said Dave.

The hit show ran for an incredible 14 years from 1991 to 2003, and Dave still takes the show on the road with his own gunge tank.

“It will drop 90 odd litres of nasty gunge onto your head in a 30 to 40 second fall.

“It’s great - if you want it, we’ll come round and whip it up for you.”

A whole generation that watched Dave on the telly still feels a certain affinity for gunge and the whole concept of Get Your Own Back.

But the perpetrators of his online misfortune are also most likely to be found amongst this age group.

Are they getting their own back? I mused to myself.

Have you got your own back? I asked instead.

“No,” replied Dave. “All I wanted to know was how to deal with it.”

At the time the presenter of much of the internet and social media, but with a baptism of fire he soon managed to quell the original slander that he was dead.

But, new rumours persisted, known as drive-bys, where verbal assailants fabricate falsehoods on sites like the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia.

Dave believes he lost a job with a new children’s channel due to his online record presence wrongly stating he worked for Babestation, the late night Freeview channel featuring topless women.

More recently it was put about he had a mental break down at a children’s party and was seen running through the streets throwing gunge at people.

He has even been banned from social media site MySpace after someone pretending to be him claimed he was the imposter!

Is it dealt with now I asked?

“Let’s put it this way - I do enough to let people know that I am alive,” he said, before bursting into laughter, realising what a crazy thing that is to have to say.

But does he still feel exposed? “We all are,” he warned. “If some people don’t like you and have a bit of time on their hands with an axe to grind they can make your life hell, and you wouldn’t know who they are.”

Dave is now preparing for his Mad March promotion that sees him take a series of shows and performances on the road for crazy prices.

He is also making a welcome return to CBBC with a voiceover role, and more locally looking forward to working with the Rotary Club of Horsham again in 2013.

Dave is also loving fatherhood, with his son due to celebrate his third birthday in March.

But how does entertaining children with hype and mayhem differ to caring for one?

“I get it now,” admitted Dave. “I get why parents used to look at me with nasty eyes and go ‘you don’t know what it’s like taking home an excited child.’

“Thanks Dave for a great show, they would say through gritted teeth!”

And with that Dave burst into laughter for the umpteenth time of the interview.

Hollismason posted:

Wait are you being serious? Does this actually happen?

Data Graham posted:

Can't this whole thing be dealt a mortal blow by finding some autistic dude who wasn't vaccinated?