underweareyes

Comments from underweareyes

But what about business people? They're business people too. As business partners what he did was irresponsible. But before they're artists OR business people, they're just members of society and while you excuse artists from seeking permission (??), decent human beings still have to. It's just kind of an unspoken rule of society that we treat one another w/ respect. When we *don't,* it's called being anti-social. Being dishonest, manipulative, vulgar, and invasive is obviously bad news breaux, and then on top of that to not show any sort of contrition....that's called being a sociopath and when you behave at odds w/ society, you can pretty much expect society to turn it's back on you. Belieb me. Also, ain't no art so important that it's ok to violate someone so it can get itself borned. Art is not some higher law we serve. I'm pretty sure it goes 1. God 2. Country 3. Ryan Gossling 4. Marines.
+6 |
June 7, 2012 on Erykah Badu Is Not Happy With Wayne Coyne
I like Flaming Lips a LOT, but the only time I'd call Wayne Coyne a genius would be to say, "hey genius, pass me a beer."
+13 |
June 7, 2012 on Erykah Badu Is Not Happy With Wayne Coyne
"feminism"
+Array |
February 7, 2011 on Quote Of The Day: The Tina Fey Quote
???
0 |
January 29, 2011 on Gwyneth Paltrow Upskirt
Yup.
0 |
January 29, 2011 on Gwyneth Paltrow Upskirt
Ok I just watched it again. Ian is right. Community is sexist. I'm calling Gloria Alred.
+3 |
November 5, 2010 on Thursday Night TV Open Thread
Hmmm.....were they implying that? I didn't catch that. I'm pretty sensitive to that stuff. But only when I'm PMSing. And I'm pretty. Full stop.
+10 |
November 5, 2010 on Thursday Night TV Open Thread
Wait a second. Gabe did you have to dial 911? I hope you're okay.
+11 |
November 5, 2010 on Thursday Night TV Open Thread
Abed is a monster!
+6 |
November 5, 2010 on Thursday Night TV Open Thread
R2, I couldn't agree w/ you more. I say this knowing w/ 88% certainty that we are of differing political parties. I wish schools taught Critical Thinking Skills in civics. I also wish schools taught civics.
+10 |
November 3, 2010 on Today We Are All Keith Olbermann
I was disappointed in a lot of the results last night and wondered aloud, sincerely, if maybe now people might be ready for some bipartisanship-less discourse and a friend (my BEST ONE!) told me to 'fuck off' because 'now is not the time.' I don't care. I still think people out there are interested in the same things I am: living in the U.S. and not being a jerk about it.
+35 |
November 3, 2010 on Today We Are All Keith Olbermann
I'm not sure facetaco is a lazy person just for having an opinion about the lack of John Stewart's credentials. He's a comedian.
0 |
October 29, 2010 on Barack Obama On The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
facetaco, you have my support on this, for what it's worth. which i realize is... not that much.
-1 |
October 29, 2010 on Barack Obama On The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
I've enjoyed this back-and-forth. You're funny and bright and I appreciate you as a member of the monster community. I crafted my comments in carefully, hoping you wouldn't feel personally attacked. It seems I have failed: "[b]ut okay, you really insist on calling me sexist?" I avoided calling you a sexist and opted instead to call your comment sexist. I'm embarrassed to admit but I selected passive phrases like "KIND OF disappointed" and "A LITTLE sexist" in an effort to minimize my irritation. I didn't want to come off like an irate crusader. I'm sorry if you felt attacked and I apologize. as for this: "I never said I don’t care." I know. Which is why I used the parenthetical "essentially." You responded that your comment was appropriate because it's just "the internet in general, and a snarky pop culture blog in particular." Defending your words was "unnecessary" but you acquiesced and told me I needed to "RELAX." This was flippant and it seemed you wanted to be perceived as not caring. I do agree with one of your points. You are 100% right about not mentioning gender in the comment: "Sex And The City 2? That’s what that is?! I saw the picture on the cover and just assumed it was Old Dogs." There is ZERO mention of gender in that comment. But you didn't really even have to mention it did you? The picture you refer to is OF FOUR WOMEN. Gender is implied. As for this: In fact, there WAS a movie called Old Dogs...men...same age...consider that to be sexist? I'm aware of this movie. I brought it up 2 days ago in this very thread. And, yes, I do consider the movie Old Dogs, sexist. Or do you think this reasoning of yours only applies to women? I don't. No. that is saying..a standard that applies to one...doesn't...to the other...the definition of sexism. It's actually NOT sexist to apply one standard for men, and another for women. Weird right? I know! There are plenty of un-sexist examples of standards for men being different than for women. For instance, the army has different fitness requirements for men and women. But I think I know what you're trying to say. Is it sexist to call someone old, no matter what their gender is? I don't think so, no. Some people are old and describing them that way is simply fact. I get the feeling that you so too which means we agree. Context plays an important role in my consideration because I try really hard to be rational and fair. At what point does reference to someone’s age begin to have anything to do with their sex? Again it would depend on the context. Is the movie Grumpy Old Men sexist against men? Still, context. Or are you just a little off target with this whole thing? Not even a little bit. Not at all.
+5 |
October 28, 2010 on What You Will Need For Tonight’s Sex And The City 2 Viewing Party
Believe it or not dismissing an actress’s performance because of her age IS sexist. As I said earlier sexism is any attitude that promotes stereotypes of social roles based on gender. One stereotype, a stereotype you are perpetuating, is that the younger a woman is, the better. Also this: "That unnecessary defense having been made…RELAX" I mean I get that...it's the easiest, fastest way to debate a point on the Internet. It makes *me* look like I'm an uptight, reactionary zealot. Meanwhile, you come off like the cool, disaffected one. Very 'chill.' It's an especially effective tactic to employ when you have a weak defense. And make no mistake your defense IS weak. Your reasoning: "I wasn't discriminating based on gender I was being discriminating based on AGE. Besides *shrug* it's just the dumb Internet whatevs" lacks credibility. Not to mention being kind of insulting to Gabe. It's easy justify posting shallow comments on a "snarky pop culture blog" but Gabe routinely writes about homophobia, racism, bigotry and a host of social ills. But here's the thing, if you REALLY didn't care you wouldn't have responded. Saying, (essentially), I don't care only shows how much you do. It's like that ex boyfriend/girlfriend who calls you to tell you that he's never going to call again. There is no old saying that goes, "if something is unnecessary to defend, you should DEFINITELY defend it." *lest you think I'm entirely humorless, telling me to 'RELAX,' in all caps like that, did make me LOL
+4 |
October 27, 2010 on What You Will Need For Tonight’s Sex And The City 2 Viewing Party
But then I read this one and it made me :(. Calling her a whore? Really? Yuck! What am I going to do with you Starman!?
+8 |
October 27, 2010 on What You Will Need For Tonight’s Sex And The City 2 Viewing Party
Starman this made me LOL! You're right. Facts are facts. And the facts are these: from certain angles, girlfriend's face DOES have a certain equine quality. And I think everyone is as bored as you are when someone mentions it anymore. I'm like, "So? And?" I'm so happy we agree.
0 |
October 27, 2010 on What You Will Need For Tonight’s Sex And The City 2 Viewing Party
You're proposing that discrediting an actresses work by calling her ugly is not sexist? You're telling me there's nothing sexist about dismissing an actresses performance because of her age? I will take you at your word and believe that this is a new definition you haven't been exposed to and I will explain that sexism is any attitude that promotes stereotypes of social roles based on gender. For example, determining a woman's worth based on how attractive/youthful she is. I can see how the DVD cover of Sex And the City 2 could conjure up the cover of Wild Hogs (the movie staring Tim Allen, John Travolta, Martin Lawrence, and William H. Macy). Instead, the comment pointedly compares the cover to OLD DOGS (staring John Travolta and Robin Williams). Let's assume the commenter confused the movies (they DO seem like the same movie). I'm still uncomfortable calling women Wild Hogs. It seems so....porn-ish and derogatory. I'm not saying it's wrong to discuss someone's looks. I like having those discussions.There's so much to hate about Sex and the City. Let's not be shallow and write it off based on looks.
+7 |
October 27, 2010 on What You Will Need For Tonight’s Sex And The City 2 Viewing Party
I *really* can't stand the Sex and the City phenomenon. It's unhealthy, exploitative, and dim-witted. So I was kind of disappointed to find the first comment on this post a little sexist.
+8 |
October 26, 2010 on What You Will Need For Tonight’s Sex And The City 2 Viewing Party
I half agree. But then when I really think about it, everything people believe in, even science*, seems absurd. The things people tell themselves to get through an HOUR, are pretty remarkable. (* using this word in this way as a person who places a LOT of trust in science).
+2 |
October 26, 2010 on Babies Be Prayin’!