Libertus @ Libertus @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

32

Joined

2 yr. ago

Nice 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.

Diamanda Galás & John Paul Jones - Hex (YouTube)

DIAMANDA GALAS Sono L' Antichristo (YouTube)

@Objection@lemmy.ml Please tell me specifically what makes this qualify as news. Will you now publish every anniversary from around the world? Or are you just another person trying to antagonize Poles and Ukrainians? Because it clearly looks like the latter. What do you say about another important anniversary for Poles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre We Poles remember very well who has been trying to destroy us for decades. Here's another suggestion perfect for future anniversaries you could commemorate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939%E2%80%931946)

• Profit
• Utopia

Red Hat 5.0 "Hurricane" from 1997. I still have the CD.

I would rather suggest checking "about: support", not "about: config".

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)

Charging Bull also known as Bull of Wall Street

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/

we need high value content that is worth reading, not just copy of someone's rss feed. what he is doing is exactly what drives lot of people away.

So stop complaining and start producing some "high value content that is worth reading" or just return under your rock until you get a life.

Until there is proof or external verification of the results, it's just another case of Chinese propaganda.

I think that Diamanda Galas - The Litanies of Satan (or any other of her works) will be appropriate.

This reminds me of a movie from the 90s titled Mind ripper

SilverHawks

The 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.