Gay pride

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Good, I don't have to say it. I find it funny people suddenly have a big problem with it when we've been saying it for singular individuals forever.

I've used it in my writing when trying to hide the identity of a character, and it pisses the readers off because they think I am making the mystery character 'trans'.

I really want off this planet.

[Andrew NDB]

In spoken form yeah, we all say "they" all the time. It's almost automatic. In the written word is where I find it lazy and stupid (unless a situation like what superstaff is saying above), because there's no excuse for it.

[IndigoErth]

I saw some shared screen shot post yesterday where the woman had included the words "people with vaginas," and some guy who commented (on the site it was shared on, not a commenter in the screen shot) had an issue with it and suggested that kind of wording looks insincere and contributes to objectification.

Since when can't women be called people?? And if someone said "women with vaginas" someone else would no doubt be mad at that that too, as if it's a clarification with a motive or agenda behind it, like using "people" or "women" are no longer just part of forming a properly descriptive complete sentence. People are getting way too butthurt over word usage and acting like every word has some kind of ulterior motive...

edit: Though saying "women with vaginas" sorta sounds awkwardly unnecessarily clarifying... like saying cars with wheels. I see no issue with using "people."

[superstaff]

The problem is that wording has now become politicized. Both sides jump to conclusions when presented with certain words and phrases. So using 'they' will inevitably trigger people who aren't fond of trans people, even if they is used in a context that demands it (ie singular they). Conversely, there's words that offend people on the left as well, even things that are relatively benign like 'spaz'.

[1987]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

I saw some shared screen shot post yesterday where the woman had included the words "people with vaginas," and some guy who commented (on the site it was shared on, not a commenter in the screen shot) had an issue with it and suggested that kind of wording looks insincere and contributes to objectification.

Since when can't women be called people?? And if someone said "women with vaginas" someone else would no doubt be mad at that that too, as if it's a clarification with a motive or agenda behind it, like using "people" or "women" are no longer just part of forming a properly descriptive complete sentence. People are getting way too butthurt over word usage and acting like every word has some kind of ulterior motive...

edit: Though saying "women with vaginas" sorta sounds awkwardly unnecessarily clarifying... like saying cars with wheels. I see no issue with using "people."

but where does it end? there’s people out there claiming that “men have periods too” or “men get pregnant”. im assuming it’s really a biological female turned trans now identifying as a man, so i guess by that logic it is pregnant man? idk, so confusing. “pregnant people”, “people that have periods”. like they’re like literally teaching this stuff in schools now.

look at this twitter account @libsoftiktok they are covering alot on how these stuff is being forced on little kids

https://mobile.twitter.com/libsoftik...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

remember the movie Kindergarten Cop, that kid says “boys have penis and girls have vagina”… can you believe that would be considered bigoted by today’s standards? that wouldn’t fly anymore, there’s no way they’d put that in a movie now.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

edit: Though saying "women with vaginas" sorta sounds awkwardly unnecessarily clarifying... like saying cars with wheels. I see no issue with using "people."

Yeah but if they specifically mean "women", using the term "People" can be seen as diminishing and reductive.

To paraphrase Rowling, "There's a word for 'people with vaginas'." We've been using it for many thousands of years. It's called "woman". There's no need to dance around it and add four extra syllables to illustrate something so abundantly clear and simple. Flip it around and start calling men "people with penises", and it's still dumb. It's MORE dumb, because now you're adding FIVE extra syllables to illustrate something that only needs One.

I really hate the Pronoun Game, myself. North American English has always been about cutting through the chaff and illustrating things as directly and simply as possible. Purple prose and needlessly-flowery language has always been considered extraneous and pretentious, here. That's why all the "Great American Authors" of the 19th and 20th Century were specifically hailed for "writing the way people actually talk" and cutting out all the bullsh*t and nonsense so common in British and European prose.

There's no need to be all "mysterious" and add 17 extra syllables to words, just because you don't want to "offend" people who've already made it their life's mission to be offended by everything anyone says or does.

Singular "They" is its own issue, though. It's technically proper, but yes, it is annoying when overused as it's currently becoming. Its usage is generally meant to be more vague, such as when talking broadly about someone who may be either male or female, such as "I talked to the manager at the hardware store and they were a real asshole." Generally it would then be followed by a more specific descriptor, making the gender of "they" abundantly clear, e.g. "He was such a prick I told him I didn't need the screws that badly and left." That's how it's technically supposed to work, not "Just use 'they' in every single sentence when you're talking about someone." When speaking of a specific individual where such distinction is clear, you CAN use "they" but are still supposed to predominantly use "He" or "She".

Language Arts (or "English Class" as it used to be known) was my best subject, so not gonna lie, there's a little vein in my forehead that throbs whenever blatant misuse becomes rampant. I often feel like I did well in school for no reason at all, since after I was done everyone was just gonna come and rewrite all the rules of every single thing I'd ever learned.

[IndigoErth]

Don't worry, texting is just eventually going to dumb it down to the point that everything eventually just has a symbol and English (at least American English) turns into modern hieroglyphs.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by 1987

remember the movie Kindergarten Cop, that kid says “boys have penis and girls have vagina”… can you believe that would be considered bigoted by today’s standards? that wouldn’t fly anymore, there’s no way they’d put that in a movie now.

There's actually a Robot Chicken skit where they make that exact joke. When the kid says that, Arnold frantically yells "NOT ANYMORE!" and then they cut away. I tried to find it but I couldn't.

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Don't worry, texting is just eventually going to dumb it down to the point that everything eventually just has a symbol and English (at least American English) turns into modern hieroglyphs.

We're halfway there already.

Swear to God, every time I read a "news article" that's just a rumor headline with nothing but speculative text, and also full of piss-poor grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors - which is ALL THE F*CKING TIME, every single day - I think back to all the time I spent in Journalism class and realize I could've been looking at porn on the computer like the kid next to me and it wouldn't have made any difference. For all I know they're now a "respected journalist" online and making way more money than I ever did.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I think back to all the time I spent in Journalism class and realize I could've been looking at porn on the computer like the kid next to me and it wouldn't have made any difference.

That's how I felt after taking Journalism in high school. Stupid class. It was extra annoying because my neighbor (well, the daughter of my neighbors) was in the class with me, and she made it difficult for me when we got paired up together for assignments.

[Leo656]

I actually loved the class and had a fantastic teacher who really stressed the fundamentals of what "journalism" actually IS. She also let me get away with murder because I always turned in all my work way ahead of schedule. Like I was on the paper, so by the end of the first week of the quarter I'd turn in like seven movie reviews, ten CD reviews, a couple of restaurant reviews and a few Op-Eds, and just be like "That should be plenty, whatever you choose to print is fine with me" and then I'd go look up wrestling rumors online, if I didn't have anything else to do.

I took the class seriously, just.. y'know, like anything else with me, not THAT seriously.

But there was SO much we went over a million times about things like not printing rumors and innuendo as "news", needing to provide verifying factual statements, NOT editorialize if you're writing a "news" article and interject your own opinion into the subject you're writing about, and of course, basic spelling, grammar, and punctuation. "Unless you commit and adhere to these principles, you are NOT a 'journalist', you're a gossip hound, and nobody respects that."

...Which was before The Internet had fully taken over and ruined everything. Everything we studied about "yellow journalism"... THAT is what passes for "regular news" nowadays, and it makes me f*cking sick. Where do they find these f*cking people, and why do standards not matter anymore? I know the answer - because "news" is now "entertainment", so like ALL entertainment "facts" no longer matter and you can just say whatever you want - but it shouldn't be that way.

But yeah, anyways, I loved Journalism. One of my favorite classes. I only took it Senior year, though, I thought it was for nerds before. I wish I'd started it as a Freshman, I would've been one of the Editors my Senior year. People really liked my writing, too, so that was fun. One of my few regrets from school was not making that one of my main electives all four years, and only taking it at the end because I needed the credits.

Any class is really only as good as the teacher, though. That's one of the main things I learned in school.

[Jester]

Yeah...I never took journalism in highschool but seeing what passes as "news" makes me physically ill. I wish I knew how to get that cushy job of writing those articles that require next to no effort.

[superstaff]

My Journalism teacher basically told us that the key to good journalism was having headlines that caught people's attentions.

I'll leave you guys to form your own conclusions on whether she was a good teacher or not.

[IndigoErth]

I mean, technically that would be true, I'm sure no one wants boring headlines that make people skip over their article (and good luck staying employed if that's the case), but a good, eye catching headline and a baiting one are two different things.


Case in point, sorta... Saw one of those "ads" yesterday disguised as an article. Damn thing included a photo of someone pouring a bottle of Coke in a gas tank with some headline about a trick that would cut your gas cost in half, or something to that effect. Was disgusted by it because some idiots out there, though their own fault for being gullible, are bound to damage their cars by assuming it's legit.


Never had a journalism class specifically, though I remember somewhere along the way learning about the basics of it in school. (Did have a technical writing course later in college...now that is tough if your natural writing angle is creative!)

Originally Posted by Leo656

I actually loved the class and had a fantastic teacher who really stressed the fundamentals of what "journalism" actually IS. She also let me get away with murder because I always turned in all my work way ahead of schedule. Like I was on the paper, so by the end of the first week of the quarter I'd turn in like seven movie reviews, ten CD reviews, a couple of restaurant reviews and a few Op-Eds, and just be like "That should be plenty, whatever you choose to print is fine with me" and then I'd go look up wrestling rumors online, if I didn't have anything else to do.

Sounds like you may have missed a calling, or one of.

[Leo656]

Your teacher was partly correct but unsurprisingly forgot to address the nuance of that statement.

My teacher explained it in an altogether different way. See, the headline IS technically the most important thing... because it's literally the only thing 99% of people are going to read, and every opinion they take away is going to depend on the wording of that headline.

SOME people read a little further, so the opening paragraph is the next-most important thing; this is where you can clarify and add some texture and clarification to what the headline says. BUT, you also have to essentially cram the entire article's worth of information into those two or three sentences, because again, if you've kept anyone's attention past the headline you've just witnessed a miracle. So your first paragraph needs to be dynamite, because not one person is going to read past that. Anything important, you can't bury in the body of the second or third paragraph, nobody's ever going to see it. That's what "burying the lead" is. If it matters, put it out there right at the beginning; otherwise, it's invisible.

Obviously you still "have to" write an entire article after that, but you're essentially spinning wheels at that point, writing stuff that will never be read by anyone.

It's a little disheartening to be taught this, but... we were told to treat it as necessary because human beings simply don't have the patience to read anymore (and this was in the year 2000; it's only gotten FAR worse). You do want your entire article to be as good as it can possibly be, but only the headline and first 3 or 4 sentences "actually matter", and it's never the fault of the writer. It's because people have become more and more functionally illiterate ever since cable TV became a thing, and so a writer is forced to adjust accordingly, like it or not.

And this is why all "news" nowadays is the epitome of yellow tabloid journalism, every single thing we were all taught NOT to do. It's simply a matter of, "Otherwise nobody's going to read it." Because "news" articles aren't just competing with TV anymore, they're competing with YouTube and Twitter and Facebook memes. You have all of .5 seconds to capture someone's attention anymore and so you really have no choice but to play the game.

It's awful, but it's just all a part of the steady dumbing down of society that began with the invention of the internet. As succinctly summed up by this lovely piece of business Right Here:



But yeah, unfortunately your teacher was technically correct, but it sounds like at the least she neglected to address the Why.

The headline shouldn't be the only thing that matters, but... it is, because people are stupid and have no patience. The choice to either raise the bar and force everyone to catch up, or lower it to placate the lowest common denominator was made a long, long time ago. It's now solely up to the individual to either do the work and educate themselves, or trust what they see on "the news", which is... REALLY a bad idea.

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Sounds like you may have missed a calling, or one of.

I very briefly entertained notions of pursuing a Journalism career, but quickly recognized how things were already falling apart and decided against it. I really couldn't do what passes for "journalism" nowadays, I could never live with myself. I don't know how anyone does.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

But yeah, unfortunately your teacher was technically correct, but it sounds like at the least she neglected to address the Why.

No, no. She basically explained it the way you did, more or less. It's just that, in her opinion, it was okay to 'exaggerate' the truth in order to get more eyes on your articles. The truth needed to be in the body itself, but most people won't read it or care to. So the important thing, to be successful, is to attract readers with that headline even if it's 'a little fudged'.

[Prowler]

I didn't expect to see Riley Reid in this thread.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by superstaff

No, no. She basically explained it the way you did, more or less. It's just that, in her opinion, it was okay to 'exaggerate' the truth in order to get more eyes on your articles. The truth needed to be in the body itself, but most people won't read it or care to. So the important thing, to be successful, is to attract readers with that headline even if it's 'a little fudged'.

Well, we were not taught to do THAT, no. We were not taught to "fudge" the headline to make it more entertaining or attractive. That's sensationalist, which we were discouraged from doing. Rather, to stick to the facts when crafting a headline but try and word it in a creative and eye-catching manner.

Originally Posted by Prowler

I didn't expect to see Riley Reid in this thread.

Can't lie, sometimes it bothers me how many porn stars you know the names of. Nothing against you, it just means I'm getting old, and I don't like it. The most "recent" ones I know of are Tori Black and Sandra Romain and I don't even think they work anymore. Shows how much I keep up, huh?

Thanks, though, I can always count on you. I had no idea what that chick's name was. I know who I'LL be looking up later tonight!

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Can't lie, sometimes it bothers me how many porn stars you know the names of. Nothing against you, it just means I'm getting old, and I don't like it. The most "recent" ones I know of are Tori Black and Sandra Romain and I don't even think they work anymore. Shows how much I keep up, huh?

I know Riley Reid. I also know Tori Black (the first thing I saw her in was Batman XXX, lol). Dunno Sandra Romain.

[Leo656]

YOU DON'T KNOW SANDRA?!?! Holy SH*T. She's a f*cking Trash Goddess. Filthy mouth, down for absolutely anything, the nastier the better. She's f*cking amazing. She might be my favorite of all time.

There's two scenes of hers that are my favorite. One of them, she has a naked chick tied down to a pallet on her hands and knees with a ball-gag in her mouth, and after playfully whipping her all over her body with a leather cat-o'-nine-tails - and I mean ALL over her body - she proceeds to VERY roughly penetrate her with a big strap-on. Both orifices. Constant filthy sh*t-talk, which her Romanian accent makes even better. The whole time the other girl has her eyes rolling back in her head and is begging for more as best she can with a ball gag in her mouth. I'm not sure who the other chick was, but apparently she got a real kick out of being spit on and called a whore.

...This is very relevant for the Gay Pride thread. ALL of her lesbian scenes are incredible. She's incredibly hot but she did start showing her age in the face after a while. But y'know. Amazing body.

The other favorite scene, she's on the phone with her "husband" when a dozen black guys show up at her door saying their TV broke and they were looking for a place to watch the game. Naturally, she ends up taking on every one of them in groups of 4 or 5 at a time until she's covered in spunk, at which point her husband comes home and starts yelling "Hey, that's my wife!" She then grabs a towel and runs upstairs still-dripping while a bunch of naked black guys menacingly advance on her husband, and then it ends. Fun stuff.

Not all of her stuff is THAT rough, a lot of it is actually pretty "standard" but she definitely doesn't shy away from getting a little nuts. People say a lot of porn stars only do it for the money and drugs, but I would say after seeing a ton of her work, I honestly believe Sandra just REALLY likes being a huge whore. Good for her, she's great at it!

And Tori Black was definitely the best Catwoman, I say that all the time. First thing I ever saw her in was I think one of her earliest roles, getting f*cked on a beanbag in some college rec room while a ton of the college students watched and cheered. Again, people say "those chicks are all just acting", but I don't think so in every single case, definitely not hers. I've seen Tori take dicks up her ass that were as long as my forearm, laughing the whole time, so either she honestly likes it like that or is on so much blow she's entirely numb from the waist down.

But yeah, I don't really know any of the "newer" ones. Pornhub only shows their names on the title line if they're already famous. Otherwise it's just "Surprise Lesbian Massage" or "Caught My Step-Sister Masturbating", or whatever, and no actors' names.

Was easier back when Fox Magazine was still a thing, they kept you up to date on Who's Who and What's What.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

The other favorite scene, she's on the phone with her "husband" when a dozen black guys show up at her door saying their TV broke and they were looking for a place to watch the game. Naturally, she ends up taking on every one of them in groups of 4 or 5 at a time until she's covered in spunk, at which point her husband comes home and starts yelling "Hey, that's my wife!" She then grabs a towel and runs upstairs still-dripping while a bunch of naked black guys menacingly advance on her husband, and then it ends. Fun stuff.

I probably saw this or something like it at some point.

This is the sort of porn that should unite us as a people, but alas.