Thank you, privileged man, for telling all women it's their fault that some men can't seem to control their urges properly.
Advertisement
by Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:54 am
Bythyrona wrote:Zaras wrote:Democratic People's Republic of Glorious Misty Mountain Hop.
The bat in the middle commemmorates their crushing victory in the bloody Battle of Evermore, where the Communists were saved at the last minute by General "Black Dog" Bonham of the Rock 'n Roll Brigade detonating a levee armed with only four sticks and flooding the enemy encampment. He later retired with honours and went to live in California for the rest of his life before ascending to heaven.
Best post I've seen on NS since I've been here. :clap:
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:54 am
Cannot think of a name wrote:Except that the situations are not, in fact, analogous and have distinctions that make all the difference in the world...
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Laerod » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:56 am
Des-Bal wrote:Laerod wrote:Are you seriously comparing the wearing of a very, very specific uniform with a very, very specific context to the broad selections of clothes that could be considered revealing?
The one set of clothes you can wear at a time is a very very specific uniform and the context in which you happen to be wearing it is a very very specific context.
The point of making it an SS uniform was to out the obvious flaws with the idea that you should have complete control over how people react to what your wearing.
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:57 am
Laerod wrote:When compared to an SS uniform? Certainly not.
Revealing clothes are not uniform and most certainly do not carry the context an SS uniform does. Yeah, there's dipshits out there that don't seem to get what wearing an SS uniform means (looking at Hetalia cosplayers here), but that SS uniforms provoke a reaction not necessarily intended by the wearer doesn't mean that it's comparable to wearing revealing clothing, for the simple reason THAT AN SS UNIFORM IS WORN FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LOOKING LIKE AN SS OFFICER rather than for comfort or whatever other reason one might wear revealing clothing for.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:57 am
How compassionate of you.
by Cannot think of a name » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:58 am
Des-Bal wrote:You are arguing that you cannot make assumptions about why someone's wearing what they are. Are you saying that is an absolute truth or can you based on context make such assumptions?
by Azelkaeth » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:58 am
by Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:59 am
Really, I appreciate being thrown in the same pool with the other apes and idiots that can't seem to control themselves and have the tact of a wildebeest.
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:01 am
Northern Dominus wrote: How compassionate of you.
Look its ok to look or even gaze a bit. It's natural for both sexes apparently. But unless somebody is designed in a deliberately provocative manner, such as your Waffen SS uniform, nobody has the right to make anybody else uncomfortable.
Comparing that uniform to the whole range of women's clothing that could be construed as "revealing" depending on the other end of the judging scale isn't a one for one basis. Your dress-up clothing utilizes symbols and imagery attached to a specific period and ideology that provokes extreme reactions in the first place, so in this case yes you probably deserve the leers and stares coming your way.
How exactly is that comparable to women getting uncomfortable stares for wearing something even remotely flattering to their figure?
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:02 am
Pretty much this.Cannot think of a name wrote:Des-Bal wrote:That was literally the only thing you had to clarify to prevent this entire exercise in tail chasing.
Or, you know, you could have read what I had already wrote. Potato, po-tah-to.Des-Bal wrote:You are arguing that you cannot make assumptions about why someone's wearing what they are. Are you saying that is an absolute truth or can you based on context make such assumptions?
Aaaaand here we go again.
You want permission. I'm not giving it to you. It's not going to happen. Nothing a woman wears is going to absolve you of the responsibility of treating her with respect no matter how convinced you are that she doesn't want it.
by Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:02 am
Northern Dominus wrote:Really, I appreciate being thrown in the same pool with the other apes and idiots that can't seem to control themselves and have the tact of a wildebeest.Zaras wrote:
Thank you, privileged man, for telling all women it's their fault that some men can't seem to control their urges properly.
Bythyrona wrote:Zaras wrote:Democratic People's Republic of Glorious Misty Mountain Hop.
The bat in the middle commemmorates their crushing victory in the bloody Battle of Evermore, where the Communists were saved at the last minute by General "Black Dog" Bonham of the Rock 'n Roll Brigade detonating a levee armed with only four sticks and flooding the enemy encampment. He later retired with honours and went to live in California for the rest of his life before ascending to heaven.
Best post I've seen on NS since I've been here. :clap:
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:02 am
Cannot think of a name wrote:
Aaaaand here we go again.
You want permission. I'm not giving it to you. It's not going to happen. Nothing a woman wears is going to absolve you of the responsibility of treating her with respect no matter how convinced you are that she doesn't want it.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Cannot think of a name » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:05 am
Des-Bal wrote:Cannot think of a name wrote:
Aaaaand here we go again.
You want permission. I'm not giving it to you. It's not going to happen. Nothing a woman wears is going to absolve you of the responsibility of treating her with respect no matter how convinced you are that she doesn't want it.
So you're saying there is no context where your clothing might suggest what motivated you to wear it?
Cannot think of a name wrote:You want permission. I'm not giving it to you. It's not going to happen. Nothing a woman wears is going to absolve you of the responsibility of treating her with respect no matter how convinced you are that she doesn't want it.
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:06 am
Northern Dominus wrote:Pretty much this.
If Des-Bal is willing to disrespect women based solley on what they wear then he'd better be willing to put up with all the spit bricks and insults that come his way when he stomps around in his little dress-up SS Uniform. It's only fair after all, wearing something that clearly demonstrates he desires to be abused in some fashion.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:06 am
Cannot think of a name wrote:I'm saying no matter what you think someone's motivations are, you are not absolved of your responsibility to treat them with respect.
Wait, I think I said something similar to that once...
Oh yeah, there it is.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:08 am
Bythyrona wrote:Zaras wrote:Democratic People's Republic of Glorious Misty Mountain Hop.
The bat in the middle commemmorates their crushing victory in the bloody Battle of Evermore, where the Communists were saved at the last minute by General "Black Dog" Bonham of the Rock 'n Roll Brigade detonating a levee armed with only four sticks and flooding the enemy encampment. He later retired with honours and went to live in California for the rest of his life before ascending to heaven.
Best post I've seen on NS since I've been here. :clap:
by Cannot think of a name » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:08 am
by Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:08 am
Des-Bal wrote:Northern Dominus wrote: How compassionate of you.
Look its ok to look or even gaze a bit. It's natural for both sexes apparently. But unless somebody is designed in a deliberately provocative manner, such as your Waffen SS uniform, nobody has the right to make anybody else uncomfortable.
Comparing that uniform to the whole range of women's clothing that could be construed as "revealing" depending on the other end of the judging scale isn't a one for one basis. Your dress-up clothing utilizes symbols and imagery attached to a specific period and ideology that provokes extreme reactions in the first place, so in this case yes you probably deserve the leers and stares coming your way.
How exactly is that comparable to women getting uncomfortable stares for wearing something even remotely flattering to their figure?
Hello, I'm Des-Bal, I'm as compassionate as an electric fence.
So you're agreeing that someone dressed in a deliberately provocative manner is okay to stare at?
by Zaras » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:11 am
Northern Dominus wrote:1. What exactly constitutes "stare-worthy" feminine attire in your perception? What possible outfits or trends could be construed as worthy of creepy stars.
Bythyrona wrote:Zaras wrote:Democratic People's Republic of Glorious Misty Mountain Hop.
The bat in the middle commemmorates their crushing victory in the bloody Battle of Evermore, where the Communists were saved at the last minute by General "Black Dog" Bonham of the Rock 'n Roll Brigade detonating a levee armed with only four sticks and flooding the enemy encampment. He later retired with honours and went to live in California for the rest of his life before ascending to heaven.
Best post I've seen on NS since I've been here. :clap:
by Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:13 am
No kidding. When somebody gets caught being a creepy perv, they get called out on it, the subject of the creepy perviness doesn't get blamed.Zaras wrote:Northern Dominus wrote:1. What exactly constitutes "stare-worthy" feminine attire in your perception? What possible outfits or trends could be construed as worthy of creepy stars.
And why get angry at the woman for being outraged that you're staring at her? The problem here is your dick and the fact that you wouldn't tell it to shut the fuck up and ignore it. Trying to shift blame onto a woman is just disingenous.
by Bottle » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:19 am
by Bottle » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:21 am
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:23 am
Cannot think of a name wrote:Wow, you're still holding on to that one, huh? After numerous people have pointed out the various problems with it?
Tell you what, find me that analog--what a woman can wear that compares with an SS uniform that makes this metaphor not...you know, complete bullshit. Let's see where you're going with this.
Northern Dominus wrote:When they're dressed to be a spectacle, yes. Playing dress-up in a Waffen SS uniform and parading up and down the local streets is a spectacle in and of itself since A. The Nazis lost and B. They represent a certain mindset which is abhorrent or shocking and C. Nazi stormtroopers aren't exactly a fixture in this day and age. In that case staring is appropriate
A woman dressing in a manner that is appropriate for the heat or environmental conditions or, gasp, in a manner that is flattering to her figure to any degree is not a spectacle, it's normal, therefore staring isn't ok.
Is that a clear enough distinction?
Two things I think you probably should answer before continuing.
1. What exactly constitutes "stare-worthy" feminine attire in your perception? What possible outfits or trends could be construed as worthy of creepy stars.
2. Do you apply this concept to men as well? Does this apply to men who do anything shirtless in public or wear clothing that is seemingly designed for the purpose of attracting the opposite sex.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Laerod » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:24 am
Des-Bal wrote:Laerod wrote:When compared to an SS uniform? Certainly not.
Revealing clothes are not uniform and most certainly do not carry the context an SS uniform does. Yeah, there's dipshits out there that don't seem to get what wearing an SS uniform means (looking at Hetalia cosplayers here), but that SS uniforms provoke a reaction not necessarily intended by the wearer doesn't mean that it's comparable to wearing revealing clothing, for the simple reason THAT AN SS UNIFORM IS WORN FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LOOKING LIKE AN SS OFFICER rather than for comfort or whatever other reason one might wear revealing clothing for.
So your saying the difference is that the SS uniform is designed to serve a specific purpose.
by Northern Dominus » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:25 am
And again, what would constitute that criteria, in your estimation? It's a subjective issue so that could be anything from "pasties and a g-string" to "anything which uncovers the forearms".
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Big Eyed Animation, Cyptopir, Hypron, Keltionialang, Moloto Japan, Neu California, Talibanada, Uiiop
Advertisement