I will be keeping a list of books read this year, along with a short review about them, and a rating.
The rating is a 1-5 scale:
5: This is one of my new favorite books
4: I would include this book on a list for anyone who asks for a book recommendation
3: I would recommend this book, but it would come with heavy caveats
2: I wouldn’t recommend reading, but I didn’t regret having spent time with it
1: I regretted reading this
@DCTalks1009 This is what I mean. You are posting ai nonsense. You can’t actually engage with what I said. I’m aware she built her argument around passivity, but you can’t even understand why I call it a red herring. You’re not equipped to have these conversations.
It happens so often that I’m surprised I haven’t seen it named before, but there’s this phenomena when you bring up a topic you’ve thought a lot about and have a fully fleshed out opinion on, then a commenter will come in with the most surface level dictionary type response thinking they’ve refuted something but just show they’ve put almost no thought of their own into the topic.
Someone needs to coin a term.
@memeticsisyphus@evristainted You’re not so stupid to have not understood it when you first learned what it is. It’s just that your point would collapse if you used the actual definition, not the made up one.
On my first day of my physics lab I arrived early and started a conversation with the TA. I mentioned I was a physics major and talked about what I wanted to do with that etc… he made me realize that I was actually in the wrong class. I had been put in the non-calc based physics class that all the other non-math based majors take. He said I should finish the lab then go correct the mistake later.
During that conversation two young women sat down at the table behind me. They perked up at hearing me talk about my major, and us talking about some physics topics. They picked up their stuff and moved to my table. With a large smile very friendly, laughed a lot. They added me to their GroupMe chat so we could “discuss the work.” Their exchanges were very polite, very enthusiastic, little heart emojis etc… Believe it or not they wanted to split the work and compare after. It was pretty clear after about 30 seconds they wanted me to do their work for them. When I told them no and I’m switching classes I was met with a wall of text explaining how unfair it was that I was leaving them in the lurch (I hadn’t agreed to anything). A few insults were thrown in there as well, and they blocked me. It was all disgustingly transparent and left a lasting impression.
Anyway those girls looked exactly like the girl on the right.
@memeticsisyphus If you only form opinions based on your own feelings and don't listen to others and can't be challenged on it then your opinion isn't "fully fleshed out." It's just you being stubborn and closed minded and misogynist.
When Laura Mulvey coined the term she was not describing the passivity of the character as the flaw. She described presenting women in media as sexually attractive to heterosexual men as reenforcing patriarchal beauty standards, she claimed that men finding women who are presented as merely physically attractive and nothing more as a way for patriarchal men to oppress women representing them as only physical objects to be viewed at the pleasure of men.
The key to all of her critiques is male sexuality. She is upset the straight male is sexually interested in a woman by physical appearance alone. She doesn’t like this. She doesn’t like what men find attractive so she calls it patriarchal beauty standards. She thinks all of this has a negative effect on women so she invented a slur to capture the idea and shame it. The passivity feature of the original critique is dropped, in an accidental moment of feminist honesty, and the male gaze now gets applied to any woman who is sexually attractive in media, passive or not. That’s why “dressed for the male gaze” can be applied to lead roles for women with complex and fully flushed out characters. The critique is not about the women, but about male sexuality.
@memeticsisyphus I mean yea, you have an opinion on it because you’ve thought a lot about it but then you presented that opinion as if it were factually true. That’s why I said you’re not that stupid, just like you’re not so stupid as to think this makes you correct.
A common talking point a few years ago was “the male gaze.” This was the term used to describe women in media who heterosexual men found sexually attractive. This was presented as a bad thing. Wrapped up in the same argument is “sexualization” which is the process of a straight man finding a woman sexually attractive. This too is presented as a bad thing, though this reason is left unarticulated. As a culture these concepts have been well engrained. Many women find men’s expressed sexual desires to be inherently bad. Even if that desire is simply wanting to be desired back.
Wanye’s said that porn can illustrate men’s sexual desire. From that women can understand in part what men desire. It’s a simple argument, not difficult to understand. People were mad about it, because the concept of men’s sexual desire being not only accepted, but used to suggest some women might modify their own behavior even on behalf of a man they love is unthinkable.
They of course can’t articulate this point, they’d for the most part be embarrassed if they admitted it, so instead they call wanye sexually inadequate.
Women will watch pornography and exclaim, “wow, this sex that was designed in a lab to appeal to men is nothing like any of the sex I’ve ever had with men” and think they’re saying something critical of the pornography.
BREAKING: A robot developed by Caltech and funded by DARPA has successfully built part of a structure in orbit without astronauts, marking what researchers describe as the first autonomous construction of a structure in space.
The experiment, called ASTRA, uses a robotic arm to retrieve individual structural tubes and connecting joints, then assemble them into sections of a larger framework directly in orbit.
Launched aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 in March, the system has spent approximately six months in space testing the technology.
The robot successfully constructed a new section of a truss structure, demonstrating that spacecraft could eventually assemble large structures from smaller components rather than launching them fully assembled.
The experiment is part of DARPA's NOM4D program, which aims to enable construction of enormous structures in orbit, potentially hundreds of meters or even kilometers across.
Potential applications include:
> Giant space telescopes
> Large satellite communications antennas
> Orbital solar power stations
>Future space infrastructure too large to fit inside conventional rockets
The demonstration did not complete the full planned antenna, but establishes an important proof of concept for autonomous orbital construction.
The technology could eventually allow the size of structures built in space to exceed the physical limits of the rockets used to launch their components.
Link to official report submitted by Caltech: https://t.co/63Mpylbisb
I thought this tweet was going to be "Political correctness means I was just forced to waste time telling my sweet 14-year-old daughter, who would never say anything offensive, to be careful about what she does and says.
Instead, it's about how he had to tell his daughter she shouldn't keep telling racist - sorry, "politically incorrect" - jokes in public using Cartman's voice.
People see the population of this country largely double since just the 70s, wonder why they can’t get a job anymore and then question why any suggestion of bringing down the number to a more manageable one is even a suggestion at all.
They think they should have access to luxury, not reasonable accommodations, not humane, not affordable, but luxury amenities for the simple fact that they exist and they want them.
@itstuff48 It didn’t develop a negative connotation its was conceptualizes as a denigration of media as part of an oppressive patriarchal world view. It’s not my fault you don’t know what any of these terms mean.
@itstuff48 Thank you. Of course nobody has an issue with the passivity of a character on screen. The critique of the male gaze is not about passivity, it’s about heterosexual male sexual interest. Feminists hate male sexuality so they invented a slur for when they see it in the media.