Is SJWism not just a new, rebranded form of sexual puritanism?

Grayson · 01-02-2018 08:24PM

Do people go out looking for stories like this to get offended. I never hear about them until I see them on boards at which point I see a load of people getting annoyed over some little thing.

Grayson · 01-02-2018 08:27PM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

You are reading the thread yeah?

I didn't see anything about it here either. The OP's first post had links about james franco.

nullzero · 01-02-2018 08:27PM

jacksie66 wrote: »

I'd I had a body like those models I'd want to show it off, unfortunately I'm a 30 year old 6ft 2 bearded buy with a gut..

You should be throwing the darts pal

B.A._Baracus · 01-02-2018 08:28PM

Grayson wrote: »

I didn't see anything about it here either. The OP's first post had links about james franco.

A nice link for you...

http://www.businessinsider.com/f1-grid-girls-have-lost-their-jobs-but-are-fighting-back-on-twitter-2018-2

Harry Palmr · 01-02-2018 08:30PM

Worth a read, another example of sleep walking into the new puritanism.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/31/hylas-and-the-nymphs-jw--waterhouse-why-have-mildly-erotic-nymphs-been-removed-from-a-manchester-gallery-is-picasso-next

In the 60s, 70 and 80s liberals fought the law - Lady Chaterly's Lover, Oh Calcutta, Romans in Britain and so on. Now their "children" are pushing in the other direction.

Captain Obvious · 01-02-2018 08:31PM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

You are reading the thread yeah?

Yep. Seems to be a bunch of snowflakes upset they won't see pretty faces when watching sports. Just throw some Pornhub on in the background if you need the fix that bad.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Edit
Here he comes to save the day...... It's sjw time baybee.

Pathetic.

Pherekydes · 01-02-2018 08:32PM

Beanntraigheach wrote: »

There's a strangely old-fashioned view of women that's become increasingly prevalent of late too:
delicate, vulnerable, innocent creatures who need constant protection from sex-crazed, bestial men.

It's positively Victorian.

What's Victorian is the idea that women are just bimbos and only good for parading the round numbers.

hatrickpatrick · 01-02-2018 08:33PM

Horseshoe theory is widely regarded as bullsh!t but I'd make an exception when it comes to the alt-right and SJWs. They're terrifyingly similar in their methods and the outcomes of what they pedal if they got their way in law - even though their driving ideology is diametrically opposed.

Captain Obvious · 01-02-2018 08:37PM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

A nice link for you...

http://www.businessinsider.com/f1-grid-girls-have-lost-their-jobs-but-are-fighting-back-on-twitter-2018-2

Again, nothing about a campaign against the grid girls. What it says is

commercial operations director Sean Bratches said the custom of using grid girls "does not resonate with [the] brand values [of F1] and clearly is at odds with modern day societal norms." "We don’t believe the practice is appropriate or relevant to Formula 1 and its fans, old and new, across the world," he added.

So basically they've done their market research and come to the conclusion that pretty girls only appeal to a limited part of the market

B.A._Baracus · 01-02-2018 08:37PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yep. Seems to be a bunch of snowflakes upset they won't see pretty faces when watching sports. Just throw some Pornhub on in the background if you need the fix that bad.

Pathetic.

Oh no. Someone who I've never met has called me pathetic on the Internet what ever will I do? :pac:

cian68 · 01-02-2018 08:38PM

The women involved made the choice to model etc but The Formula 1 and PDC have every right to choose to stop hiring them as well. I don't think its SJW gone mad or anything for them to think 'why are we wasting money on this ****e that adds nothing and makes our product look backwards and small time'

Captain Obvious · 01-02-2018 08:38PM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Oh no. Someone who I've never met has called me pathetic on the Internet what ever will I do? :pac:

No need to get offended. I didn't call you pathetic, just your comment.

B.A._Baracus · 01-02-2018 08:41PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No need to get offended. I didn't call you pathetic, just your comment.

Now now. You did call me pathetic lol. At least stay true to what you said.

Also I'm not offended :pac:

hatrickpatrick · 01-02-2018 08:42PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yep. Seems to be a bunch of snowflakes upset they won't see pretty faces when watching sports. Just throw some Pornhub on in the background if you need the fix that bad.

That isn't what this is about, and I'm pretty sure you know that. It's about (a) people pressuring media companies to change their content purely based on offended sensibilities, and (b) media companies caving in to this pressure. A lot of us fundamentally believe that this is bad for society. The content is irrelevant, it's the principle of both the desire these people have to control it, and the willingness to let these people control it.

Too Tough To Die · 01-02-2018 08:47PM

Marshall Careful Gumbo wrote: »

I think first world society has definitely gotten more "safe" in the last 10-20 years. Look at the music industry, I can't think of anyone in the charts now as edgy as say Guns N Roses for instance or the grunge/rock bands of the 90s

I was thinking the same when i saw this. Imagine Axl Rose posting a tearful apology online. It's a damn shame.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmmeaeG2drA

Pat Mustard · 01-02-2018 08:53PM

Marshall Careful Gumbo wrote: »

I think first world society has definitely gotten more "safe" in the last 10-20 years. Look at the music industry, I can't think of anyone in the charts now as edgy as say Guns N Roses for instance or the grunge/rock bands of the 90s

Absolutely agree.

And comedy has moved towards the like of Michael McEntyre. I still think that he is kind of funny but there's no edge to it. It's 'safe'.

David McSavage is an exception these days and he is not everyone's cup of tea by a long shot.

Captain Obvious · 01-02-2018 08:54PM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Now now. You did call me pathetic lol. At least stay true to what you said.

As the person who actually wrote the comment I think I'm in a bette rposition to say what I was referring to.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Also I'm not offended :pac:

Yes you are. You're offended that Formula One no longer shares your vision of what the sport should be. They've decided to focus on the cars, you want pretty women.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That isn't what this is about, and I'm pretty sure you know that. It's about (a) people pressuring media companies to change their content purely based on offended sensibilities, and (b) media companies caving in to this pressure. A lot of us fundamentally believe that this is bad for society. The content is irrelevant, it's the principle of both the desire these people have to control it, and the willingness to let these people control it.

Except nobody has been able to produce any evidence of pressure involved in this decision. The people who made the decision themselves have said it's to do with improving the brand. The fact of the matter is that pretty girls in sports don't really attract women or families and in many cases can put them off. And in a society where you have HD porn at the click of a button are these pretty girls even that much of a draw to men?

paleoperson · 01-02-2018 08:59PM

Grayson wrote: »

Do people go out looking for stories like this to get offended. I never hear about them until I see them on boards at which point I see a load of people getting annoyed over some little thing.

How could you never hear about them? Everything I was talking about there was on Sky News today alone. I go out of my way to try to ignore them, but today was the final straw.

Pherekydes wrote: »

What's Victorian is the idea that women are just bimbos and only good for parading the round numbers.

What are you talking about? That's not Victorian at all, that is the exact opposite of everything Victorian is considered to be.

suicide_circus · 01-02-2018 09:01PM

What about a woman's right to be a bimbo?

#right2choose

markodaly · 01-02-2018 09:01PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Sure games won't even be worth playing without some cleavage. End of the industry. :rolleyes:

I dont play video games but it reeks of the same type of moral panic we saw from evangelicals in the 1990's

Put it this way. Look at this video from 1995, see what Marilyn Manson has to say about Suicide and Rape. Now you would never ever have someone say something like this, as it would be too offensive. The youth of today would probably have some type of nervous breakdown if someone spoke the way he did. Back then the youth had an edge, some real emotions. Now everything is sanitised to the hilt and the twitter mob comes after anyone and everyone.

We have some more freedoms now, especially for gays and the like but we have also lost out on many things especially on the way we express ourselves. It is no wonder people are so depressed.

SEPT 23 1989 · 01-02-2018 09:02PM

It's their hatred of the working classes

hatrickpatrick · 01-02-2018 09:24PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Except nobody has been able to produce any evidence of pressure involved in this decision. The people who made the decision themselves have said it's to do with improving the brand.

Improving the brand is generally marketing-speak for "avoiding controversy". Not always, but often enough for it to be a safe assumption that this is what it means unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that pretty girls in sports don't really attract women or families and in many cases can put them off. And in a society where you have HD porn at the click of a button are these pretty girls even that much of a draw to men?

If they just dropped it because people weren't interested and therefore it wasn't worth the effort, that's totally different. It's not the same as bowing to the corporate equivalent of "peer pressure".

hatrickpatrick · 01-02-2018 09:27PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula1/formula-1-f1-grid-girls-banned-get-rid-women-grand-prix-darts-ban-pdc-walk-on-eddie-hearn-a8187161.html

Formula 1 has announced that it will no longer use grid girls as the practice of having scantily clad women standing in front of cars before grand prixs “does not resonate with our brand values and clearly is at odds with modern day societal norms”.

Pretty obvious that this is about kowtowing to PC culture, and that's what makes it irritating. Societal norms, regardless of what they are, should be told to go f*ck themselves wherever they appear.

rawn · 01-02-2018 09:31PM

Herb Powell wrote: »

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

And then man door hand hook car door?

01-02-2018 09:34PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

And in a society where you have HD porn at the click of a button are these pretty girls even that much of a draw to men?

Second time you've brought porn into. That's obviously your go-to Captain. Promo girls are around ages, they do photo shoots in newspapers and magazines for any array of products and services and it's nothing to do with being f*cked on screen. Gameshows had models showing off the prizes that contestants could win. It's a glamour thing, not a filth thing.

SEPT 23 1989 · 01-02-2018 09:39PM

These people should lay their cards on the table and state what their end game really is

What society will really look like after they have finished with it

It's just slowly drip drip drip

wexie · 01-02-2018 09:41PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

What society will really look like after they have finished with it

doesn't sound like there'll be a lot of fun had anyways

Captain Obvious · 01-02-2018 09:41PM

markodaly wrote: »

I dont play video games but it reeks of the same type of moral panic we saw from evangelicals in the 1990's

Put it this way. Look at this video from 1995, see what Marilyn Manson has to say about Suicide and Rape. Now you would never ever have someone say something like this, as it would be too offensive. The youth of today would probably have some type of nervous breakdown if someone spoke the way he did. Back then the youth had an edge, some real emotions. Now everything is sanitised to the hilt and the twitter mob comes after anyone and everyone.

We have some more freedoms now, especially for gays and the like but we have also lost out on many things especially on the way we express ourselves. It is no wonder people are so depressed.

I'd agree you wouldn't have as many people make the same comments about rape or suicide because I think people understand them both a bit more. I don't see that as a negative though.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Improving the brand is generally marketing-speak for "avoiding controversy". Not always, but often enough for it to be a safe assumption that this is what it means unless explicitly stated otherwise.

If they just dropped it because people weren't interested and therefore it wasn't worth the effort, that's totally different. It's not the same as bowing to the corporate equivalent of "peer pressure".

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Pretty obvious that this is about kowtowing to PC culture, and that's what makes it irritating. Societal norms, regardless of what they are, should be told to go f*ck themselves wherever they appear.

Not when it comes to marketing. You analyse your target audience and work to make yourself attractive to them.

Omackeral wrote: »

Second time you've brought porn into. That's obviously your go-to Captain. Promo girls are around ages, they do photo shoots in newspapers and magazines for any array of products and services and it's nothing to do with being f*cked on screen. Gameshows had models showing off the prizes that contestants could win. It's a glamour thing, not a filth thing.

Yeah, and Page 3 was an exploration of the thoughts and dreams of young women.

koumi · 01-02-2018 09:44PM

me not me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBdnyrzq96s

01-02-2018 09:45PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yeah, and Page 3 was an exploration of the thoughts and dreams of young women.

Did I say that? Do F1 girls take their kit off in the pit-lane? That's news to me if they do. Your porn comparison isn't apt here so now you're hitting back all sarky. Promo girls are nothing to do with watching pornography, the fact you can equate them says more about you tbh.

Is SJWism not just a new, rebranded form of sexual puritanism?

Comments