How dare there be ugly people on TV! Now I need to cut out my eyes. I demand they get a female actress who I can masturbate to.

Gold Rush is my favorite show on TV. Not only are there no women, but all the men are ugly as fuck. Doesn't hurt the viewing experience at all.

When I want to get it off, I look up porn or *gasp* hook up with a girl. I don't need every form of entertainment to be hypersexualized to enjoy.

Hear hear!

^^that was in response to largeham

I want my Diplomacy games to become hypersexualized. I mean, just go the rest of the way and make Norway and Sweden into a giant penis with Finland dangling off as the balls. Fleets could be represented by vaginas, and armies as breasts, then we'd all race to claim Scandinavia with armies in Sweden and Norway.

SD +1

LOL

let's ask kestas to do it hahah a special edition!

I think that chick is hot anyways

you must be kidding Yellowjacket. How long since you had your eyesight tested ?

I do not insist that no unnattractive people be shown on TV.

I just want a hazard warning when someone who is, in my opinion, as ugly as that
particular person is about to be shown on TV so that I can exercise my right to self
protection by switching the TV off.

I did a bit of googling, apparently the "Operation Repo" show "stories" are generally
"re enactments" and "staged". What is shown seems to always have the
"Operation Repo" staff as the "winners" and portrays the "delinquents" ( in terms of
meeting financial commitments ) as "losers".

This is not true "reality TV" it seems more like a concocted, manipulated "reality"
to me.

Finance companies and re possesors don't make stuff ups on a daily basis,
that is a Pollyanna view of the world.

It is my opinion that this "Operation Repo" show is just second rate propoganda,
and that the particular woman is probably the most ugly, base & crude woman
going about & around.

@abge Silly. if you have the ability to hook up with a girl, what are you doing on webdip?

@MM I honestly can't tell if you're serious. What's wrong with an ugly person appearing on television? Also, it's been bugging me for days now, why do you always replace your Es with apostrophes in your perfect passive participles?

I like the idea for this new game mode, but I'm worried that it will give France an unfair advantage due to the natural surplus of Brests at the beginning.

This is the most appallingly sexist thread I've seen on this forum to date. And that's saying a lot.

I am not competent to discuss "perfect passive participles".

My use of apostrophes to replace the "e" in many "ed" endings is an
affectation, I noticed this "usage" when reading old English texts,
17th to early 19th century & liked the look of it.

My "rule of thumb" is this
if the standard word ends with an "e" eg "like" or "bake"
then I will use "liked" ar "baked"
I am trying to think of other words with what i call a "soft vowel" ending
that is not an "e" to describe how I would treat them.


but if the standard word ends with a "hard consonant"
eg "attack" or "retreat"
then I like to use "attack'd" or "retreat'd"

I also have an inconsistent "usage" where i drop the "g" in "ing" endings
and bang on an apostrophe
eg "attackin' " or " retreatin' "
this is to reflect a common poor pronounciation, but I have an idea that
somewhere in 17th to early 19th century this was a feature of pronounciation
in certain English social class(es)

I have no intention of using an "ink" ending instead of "ing" despite this also
bein' a common mis pronounciation, and of course, as I have just demonstrated
my usage is inconsistent.

I could of course ask why is it that Americans in particular mis spell words
such as colour ( color ) but figure that would be offensive, and you are free to mangle
the English language as you see fit.

Have you read any of the works of Damon Runyon ???
his particular method of writing always in the (I think ) present tense caused
some controversy, but is now accepted and described as "Runyonese"

http://w1ffc1ffc1ffc1ffcw1ffcw.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/scarjo_popcorn.gif

@ ghug

my "operation repo" observations are genuine, if you read CAREFULLY
my comments you will see that I do NOT INSIST that no unnatractive people
be shown on TV, but suggest that a "hazard warning" be used prior to broadcastin'
the images of extremely unnatractive persons.

I am indifferent to the images of unnatractive (or attractive ) men, but would have NO
problems with "hazard warnings" being used prior to broadcastin' images of
extremely unnatractive men

I think the woman I refer'd to is physically unnatractive,
but it was when she start'd to talk & "verbalise her thoughts" that I had the strongest
reaction of distaste.

Is that "sexist" ???
If she spoke in a softer, kinder manner, and far more importantly, express'd more
educated & cultured, kinder and more generous thoughts then I would tend to overlook
her physical appearance.
( and that is a criteria that I apply equally to men and women )
If a person reveals a selfish, ignorant personality lacking in humanity I dislike them.

I freely admit that I am illogical and inconsistent a lot of the time, but do like to think
that I still have the odd logical, rational and lucid moments.

Ghug, you are free to purchase services and products from those companies
that advertise on that TV program or associate themselves with it,
If you want to, you can be an adoring fan of the tv show and it's actors.
you can also encourage others to do the same.

I claim my right to criticise the particular programme, it's actors and to shun
the services and products of companies that advertise on, or associate themselves
with that TV programme & my right to encourage others to do likewise

If it helps Mafia, I was/am being sarcastic.

Lol, women alsways have to express their views in a nice, soft and demure manner, otherwise they're being HYSTERICAL! (let the men do the talking dear and go make me a sandwich).

if you wish to make the claim that the woman concern'd expresses herself in a
calm, relatively sophisticated and thoughtful manner then may I wish you lot's of luck in producing sustainable evidence to support such a claim

The "he's being sexist" criticism is just intellectually lazy.
What are you insisting upon here ? That I can apply a set of standards to the
conversation(s) of men, that is, criticise the banal, crude, uneducated & selfish
in a man, but If I apply those standards or criticisms to a woman I am being sexist ?

If you want to embrace & celebrate mediocrity then that is your choice.
If you want to be an adoring sycophantic fan of the "Operation repo" TV show,
then fell free to do so.
I am just making it clear that I find the woman abhorrent and the TV programme
markedly less than impressive

Mitch I don't think you understand the role of reality TV.

Create as much fake drama as possible to keep people who look a great deal like this woman you speak of glued to their televisions. Accept that fact and everything else that happens makes sense.

you got me there yellowjacket, you are right,
so much TV & "reality" TV is just bullshit to keep uncritical
consumers stuck in their lounge chairs absorbing commercial propoganda,
buy these products and services and you'll change your life for the better.

Well I cannot stop getting cranky and shouting out, "this is all hypocritical bullshit"
and encouraging people to boycott the purveyors of the products and services that
use these TV programmes to sell their rubbish.

It's geting late here, but I have just added a few posts to President Edens thread titled
"so I drowned my car in a lake", yes I am full of inconsistencies & illogical notions,
but to those who want to throw the sexist label on me, check out my post about my
stint at the "charity foster parent" caper .

Me, bein' me, when I did the foster parent caper, insist'd on "sponsoring" two girls
in Muslim villages & did so for quite a few years.
I make no claim to be a virtous saint, and how hard is it to splash about
$800 per year to that sort of charity organisation, that got me a tax deduction,
for a, in global terms, affluent westerner.
I am not a wealthy person compared to my fellow Australians, but in global terms,
I have it easy, but I have worked to earn what I do have.

I've been waiting some time to use this (sorry to step on your turf, PE):

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/29/AbandonThread.gif

Nice abge

Evidently you can't read.I claimed nothing about the woman herself, I merely said that for you to take a woman seriously she has to act demure and 'nice'.

I could tell you were being sarcastic largeham, you were not my concern in this thread.

"The "he's being sexist" criticism is just intellectually lazy." - Yes, clearly by calling you sexist I did not do justice to the intellectual rigor of your initial argument.
Also it's not so much intellectually lazy as just "really easy". But just because it's not difficult for me to say you're being atrociously misogynist here, that doesn't mean it's not a valid critique, and it certainly doesn't mean it's true.

That should say "it certainly doesn't mean it's not true".

I watchèd the show, and I likèd it.

well largeham,
your assumption that for me to take a woman seriously
she has to " act demure and nice" is incorrect
I like intelligent, fiesty & independent women
Dumb, loud & selfish turns me off

When I did the old "foster parent" caper for about 12 years I donated about $800
per annum to a register'd charity that provides clean water, basic health and education services to starvin' kids in what we affluent westerners call the 3rd world.

Donating $800 per annum wasn't that dificult and I got a tax deduction for it.

Me, being me, I insisted on "supporting" two girls in Muslim villages.

What a terrible old misogynist I am

I think the point we are all making is the no one cares at all what type of women you like. To that end, there's no reason for there to be a warning on a show just because you find the women physically unattractive.

abgemacht has it exactly right. Women don't exist to turn you on or off, they exist for their own purposes, to be themselves, and if she happens to be a rude, belligerent, crass and just plain awful person, so be it. I love when men say "I'm not sexist, I just think all women should be classy, intelligent and independent! I'm a feminist!" No, saying you think all women should appeal to a certain set of characteristics still makes you a sexist, misogynist asshole. Even if your criteria is intelligent and fiercely independent.

hey mafia i dont know about you but

sexeexsexsexsexsexwomenswomenswomenssexsexsexsexdrugsbeersexwomensexwmenwmenwomensexsexsexsubmission

can i get an amen

Uhhh, not so much.

Sorry, drop all the wo-'s and we'll talk.

"When I did the old "foster parent" caper for about 12 years I donated about $800
per annum to a register'd charity that provides clean water, basic health and education services to starvin' kids in what we affluent westerners call the 3rd world." - Wow, well done, you gave away a bunch of money, allowing you to feel like you were making a difference, without significantly challenging, questioning, or even examining the power imbalances that enabled you to be so generous. I'm sorry, giving money to charity, doesn't give you a free pass on oppression. Giving to charity doesn't give you a free pass to say sexist things.

Errr, wow that post was way less eloquent than I meant it to be. My point however stands.

can i still get the amen

#please

amen

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/This-Thread-Delivers/1/thread-delivers.jpg

gee whiz Mr would be wiseguy (mafialligator)
I did make it clear that it's easy for someone like me
who lives in an affluent "western" nation to donate to charity
when I made that particular post
I wasn't aware that you needed me to give an exposition on the historical
& other causes for my "ill gotten" wealth.
The implication of your remarks seems to be that as I am the beneficiary
of good fortune obtained at the expense of others, that I was wasting my time and
money donating to a charity, and / or that I somehow have no right to donate to such
a charity.
you also ignore a practical question much more important than your allegation that
my reason for donating was to feel good about myself, and that is;
did my actions (in donating, taking an interest in someone elses problems etc )
result in a material benefit to the recipients ???

you have a dodgy set of standards if you think how the donor feels about such
things is more important than the question of whether real benefits are delivered
to the recipients.
I wonder what those two women, or their parents, would say today if you asked them
about their experience.
do you seriously think they would prefer to receive no assistance because the
donor was less than virtuous ?
If you choose to dismiss the value of such charitable "works" then try living
and / or raising your children without clean, safe water or basic medical & education
services.

you also disregard the fact that I apply my standards to men and women
eg I will criticise "dumb loud & stupid" in men and women
you incorrectly assert that I expect "all women" to appeal to a certain set of
characteristics
you also ignore the context of my statement, that it was refuting another false premise
(that I would only like demure and nice women made by largeham )

I realise that I am far from perfect, and I am far more aware of my deficiencies
than you.

I have also NEVER made any claim to be a feminist.
I do have sexist attitudes ( and racist ones )
I do realise that my dabbling with Cocaine many years back helped
criminal organisations to harm innocent people.

so, sexist, yes,
misogynist, i refute
asshole, well perhaps that reveals more about you than me,
and your player name, mafia....
If you are a real, or imagined mafia wally gator
you may wish to consider the implications of idolising such people.

If you choose to be an adoring fan of such TV shows, feel free.
If you choose to embrace mediocrity, the ignorant, loud and selfish, feel free.

to be so critical of the reasons for my fortunate standards of living,
yet so uncritical of such TV shows,
might be considered inconsistent and hypocritical

you may wish to also consider the possibility that I deliberately made my
initial criticisms provocative & offensive

I have ( available to me ) the easiest & simplest remedy
for my objections to Operation Repo,
I simply will not watch it, unless it's with the volume on mute
and for the purposes of identifying those business's that advertise during the
programme, so I can boycott their services and / or products.

one, hopefully final shot & deliberately provocative,
If I had a dog as ugly as that woman, I would shave it's arse
& teach it to walk backwards.

OK, so I have been off the forum for some time and don't plan to be an active participant, but MjrMitch really needs an attitude adjustment...

MjrMitch, here is your original sexist post. Before I put it in, I want to point out that *nothing* in the post says a thing about the woman in questions personality or voice or inteelect or level of class. It is purely a physical (and therefore subjective) judgment callign for a wanring to be posted. That is sexist. Plain and simple. Deny it all you want, it is sexist and you, sir, are an ass.

"TV show Operation Repo should have a hazard warning to warn viewers
that they feature probably one of America's ugliest women, and that the
sight of her is a hazard that could harm viewers of the programme."

So then what were you arguing? You admit to being sexist, fine, I don't draw a distinction between sexism and misogyny. I see that you do, I don't think the semantics of it are important enough to go into, you realize that you're sexist. That's enough for me.

I never said that donating was a bad thing, but you specifically said "I'm not sexist or misogynist, I donate to charity!", and I was trying, poorly, to say was that donating to charity does not make you not a sexist, because it didn't cause you to re-evaluate or question your sexist ideas. Clear?

I have to say, I find your attempt to turn this argument back and cast aspersions on my character laughable. I am in no way actually involved with organized crime (obviously), nor do I idolize or glorify such people, even fictional ones. I don't even especially enjoy entertainment centered around organized crime. I just happen to think that the words "mafia" and "alligator" when merged together are amusing. But EVEN if I were a huge fan of movies and television shows centered around organized crime, I put it to you that my impact in so doing would be not necessarily say anything about my character, as long as I remained capable of critically evaluating the actions of the characters, and was still able to exercise good judgement on what kinds of actions, and what kinds of morals and values are worth replicating, and which ones should be condemned.
In fact, that reply to me was so idiotic, I kinda have to sit back and ask, did you really think you were going to make me stop and go "Oh wow, he's right, by saying the word "mafia" I'm making the world a worse place. I'm just as oppressive and sexist as he is!"?

"you may wish to also consider the possibility that I deliberately made my
initial criticisms provocative & offensive" - You may wish to consider the possibility that intentionally saying provocative and offensively sexist and misogynist things makes you both sexist and misogynist.

There's this ridiculous idea that exists that like, just saying racist, sexist things, doesn't make you a racist or a sexist so long as you're not like, a klansman, or you don't beat your wife or something. That's bullshit. If you go around saying things that openly and blatantly denigrate women, even without really meaning them, you're still contributing to a culture which systematically devalues women.

@Mafiadude +1!