- 0 Posts
- 23 Comments
6·9 months agoNice try, J. J. Abrams! I’m not going to give you my brilliant ideas for free so you can turn them into yet another shitty movie.
Many good titles were mentioned here. So as not to add to the repetition, I will add some obscure, but I think fun-to-watch, movies:
This reminds me of a certain Star Trek TNG episode titled “The Arsenal of Freedom”. Especially one specific moment of the episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmDm8MVhZiQ&t=148s
I’m using https://anytype.io/. Offline applications for all major systems, synchronization out of the box.
Death Machine (1994)
The Ribbon isn’t the worst thing. It tried to solve the clutter of the previous interface, although I always preferred the old one.
Here is an interesting take on the problem of modern interfaces: https://datagubbe.se/decusab/
I think that Diamanda Galas - The Litanies of Satan (or any other of her works) will be appropriate.
21·2 years agoThe thing is, there is no universal definition of pornography. It varies from country to country. In my country, it doesn’t fulfill some of the criteria, in particular because:
- It does not depict human genital organs in their sexual functions
- It does not solely focus on the technical aspects of sexuality and sexual life, completely detached from the intellectual and personal layers
The more important thing is that the cropped version of the picture (which was used in the research papers) does not fulfill any criteria to be classified as pornography or even as nude art. Some don’t even know that this is only part of a nude photo. I saw this cropped picture in the 90s and was surprised later in the early 2000s by the full version.
I would say more. This is an example where some random nude photo became something more because it became part of science. So it’s rather an example of “deobjectification” because this picture is focused on her face in the hat, and not her reproductive organs.
Regarding objectification, the picture of any kind has nothing to do with women being objectified. Any person may be objectified only by being treated by another person or group of people as an object. For example, a cleaning lady may be objectified by one employer who does not treat her like a living, feeling person, but not by another employer. The same applies to sex workers and any other profession. It is our attitude that determines whether we objectify someone, not the picture of a woman in a hat.
This is not porn; it’s an art. There is nothing creepy about it. Moreover, if this picture is the reason why women aren’t in this field, then there is definitely a more serious problem, but it’s not where you are looking.
I can see the same thing, and I couldn’t agree more. Do you happen to have an article of hers to share?
So, I think the only somewhat valid argument is that Lena herself expressed the wish not to use her photo. The real issue is that ‘scientists were uncomfortable.’ Because if someone feels uncomfortable with the human body, it raises questions about their mental condition. Especially in this particular case, the picture is and has always been cropped, showing no nudity. The original source, ‘Playboy,’ has nothing to do with anything, and even if it did, this is still a very tasteful piece of art. Even if there was a man in this picture, I would say the same. This is just a picture showing a pleasing composition of the surroundings and a human female specimen. So, the question that remains is: Why would anybody feel uneasy seeing a woman in a hat? Those for whom this is a problem must imagine things (that make them uncomfortable) in their heads that are not in the picture. The problem is that our culture, including advertisements, fashion, and social media, distorts the perception of human bodies and how people, especially young ones, perceive their bodies. At the same time, young people often aren’t properly socialized regarding their sexuality and aren’t taught that the body is not subject to morality, and there are no ‘good’ and ‘bad’ body parts. They shouldn’t be reinforced in their erroneous thinking by canceling and censoring parts of reality. I’m not saying that those people are the issue. I’m saying that their behavior is a symptom of the real problem with the society that needs to be addressed.
Right… Let’s eliminate every instance of nudity because religious zealots were offended by it in the past, and now leftist zealots are offended. Let’s remove the statue of David and all other art depicting the naked human body. Later, let’s remove anything from public view that could potentially offend anyone.
3·2 years agoMaybe you should try Anytype. It’s Open Source, encrypted, has applications for major OSes, provides synchronization, allows export of documents to Markdown and PDF. Sometimes it’s rough on the edges, but I think it has a potential.
Type O Negative
I was referring to the same words…
The Fly (1986).
I watched it only once, in the 90s, and I’ve never been able to watch it again since. At the same time, I think it’s an excellent film.
The seemingly light and even humorous beginning of the film is bit by bit replaced by the sheer horror of the gradual loss of humanity and the final transformation into a monster. Simultaneously, in my perception, a glimmer of hope for a good ending is created, only to be ruthlessly destroyed at the very end. Even the music from this film feels overwhelming to me.
I highly recommend it, but you should never watch it ;)