Drunk Girl In Public: A social experiment

[RougeUnderoos]

"unthanked it"?

What are you on about? You posted a lame video and nobody responded to it and you seem to think you've scored a hit for the tinfoil hat crowd.

It's a silly video put together by some moron who won't even appear on the screen, and if you "demand" a comment on the "CONTENT PEOPLE", it ignores the unreported aspect of sexual violence.

And for a little content of my own -- if there is a straight white male out there in Canada who thinks he's at a disadvantage, he's just a loser. He can't make it because he is dumb, untalented, and pathetic. There is no conspiracy against him.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

"unthanked it"?

What are you on about? You posted a lame video and nobody responded to it and you seem to think you've scored a hit for the tinfoil hat crowd.

It's a silly video put together by some moron who won't even appear on the screen, and if you "demand" a comment on the "CONTENT PEOPLE", it ignores the unreported aspect of sexual violence.

And for a little content of my own -- if there is a straight white male out there in Canada who thinks he's at a disadvantage, he's just a loser. He can't make it because he is dumb, untalented, and pathetic. There is no conspiracy against him.

Re-read, Rouge, I corrected the unthanked spot. Yes my bad. Kill me.

Lame video? Are you freakin' kidding me?

Do you support the use of very young girls to advocate misinformation like they have? Yes, that is two issues.

And F the straight white male argument. That is NOT the discussion.

[Shawnski]

If by silence on this video, you advocate its use, I am at a loss for words.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Again, nothing on the content itself. And thanked by.. Ahh forget it. EDIT.. thanks still there... my bad.
CONTENT PEOPLE!!!

Couldn't stomach watching what was going on, it was too
"Badger, badger, badger, badger, baaadger, a snake, a snake" for me to keep watching. Couldn't follow and a few days later don't remember anything other than cute swearing girls. Video was so awful the message wasn't transferred into my brain.

I remember most of the first video having watched once while at work, so the problem isn't me (obviously considering no one else really replied).

[To Be Quite Honest]

I love that woman in the video, her name is Christina Hoff Sommers. She talks about the hollaback video as well and it was also very informative. The amount of cash being made through donations by people who believe this claptrap is depressing. Nice posts Shawnski and thank you.

[Shawnski]

OK Ranch, from your post, you appear to be A-OK with those "cute swearing girls". Let alone the factoids they were talking about are incorrect.

Don't worry, even Obama regurgitated one of them so it must be factual and not misleading, right?

That said, I really do appreciate your feedback.

[flylock shox]

So the issue is: "is it okay to employ young girls to communicate messages in the media, regardless of whether those messages are true or not?"

Let's accept that, in some circumstances, and particularly in circumstances where the message they're asked to communicate is true, it's okay to use young girls for this purpose. Otherwise we're into a debate about whether young girls should be allowed to communicate anything by video to the wider world - which is probably a pointless debate.

So really there's only one issue: "should young girls be used as a means of communicating untrue information to the world?"

And I suppose the answer to that, for most people, would be "no."

That's pretty easy so far.

The problem most will have though is determining which situation we're looking at here: young girls being used to communicate true information to the world (OK), or young girls being used to communicate information that is not true (not OK).

So the issue itself requires one to take a position on whether the information presented by the young girls is true or not.

And that, I'm afraid, is just too much darned work.

Unless, of course, we trust the Kool-aid skull's video. Which we don't, because he's a talking, voice-anonymized, Kool-aid skull.

This leaves us with a lot of info to dig up and verify ourselves, which we're just not interested in doing because oh god I'm already bored with my own analysis to this point.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I love that woman in the video, her name is Christina Hoff Sommers. She talks about the hollaback video as well and it was also very informative. The amount of cash being made through donations by people who believe this claptrap is depressing. Nice posts Shawnski and thank you.

Yes, she is quite amazing. Thank you for bringing her up. She deals with FACTS AND DATA to support her opinions. Via actual research and confirmation she debunks factoids that are perpetuated way too often here and elsewhere.

I am really getting sick of false narratives being perpetuated by politicians, the media and social media posters, like CP.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

So the issue is: "is it okay to employ young girls to communicate messages in the media, regardless of whether those messages are true or not?"

Let's accept that, in some circumstances, and particularly in circumstances where the message they're asked to communicate is true, it's okay to use young girls for this purpose. Otherwise we're into a debate about whether young girls should be allowed to communicate anything by video to the wider world - which is probably a pointless debate.

So really there's only one issue: "should young girls be used as a means of communicating untrue information to the world?"

And I suppose the answer to that, for most people, would be "no."

That's pretty easy so far.

The problem most will have though is determining which situation we're looking at here: young girls being used to communicate true information to the world (OK), or young girls being used to communicate information that is not true (not OK).

So the issue itself requires one to take a position on whether the information presented by the young girls is true or not.

And that, I'm afraid, is just too much darned work.

Unless, of course, we trust the Kool-aid skull's video. Which we don't, because he's a talking, voice-anonymized, Kool-aid skull.

This leaves us with a lot of info to dig up and verify ourselves, which we're just not interested in doing because oh god I'm already bored with my own analysis to this point.

IF you wish to argue the merits (truthfulness) of what the young girls said, I would respectfully suggest you listen to that Christina Hoff Sommers posted within that video (and others, if you want further backup) and confirm her findings.

Plain and simple.

The rest of your post seems to suggest that you are OK with using the girls in this fashion?

Now, as for "truthfulness".

Data and statistics are very easily manipulated to show what the user desires.

Truthfully? I am a database god. I can slice and dice data to the ends of earth.

I can make you look tall or short. Thin or fat. Dumb or smart.

Take your pick, I can make a "study" look exactly as I want it to appear for my intentions.

And no, I am NOT for hire to do this for anyone. I wouldn't do it.. period.

I want data to reflect factual information that is time tested. I seek out anomalies and changes within data to see shifts. I look to ensure anomalies are not considered in reporting unless truly relevant.

What I am seeing perpetuated on the interwebs and even here (regarding this video's topic) is quite often false information. Or misleading at best.

And that does NO ONE any favours.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Yes, she is quite amazing. Thank you for bringing her up. She deals with FACTS AND DATA to support her opinions. Via actual research and confirmation she debunks factoids that are perpetuated way too often here and elsewhere.

I am really getting sick of false narratives being perpetuated by politicians, the media and social media posters, like CP.

The deleting of the swimsuit thread was the correct call. I have zero issue with the female posters here posing guys in swimsuits or half naked and not have to worry about boys complaining about it, but it's far too much volunteer work to ask of someone to police such things. There is no issue there, but the blatant attacks on a specific gender is what I can never tolerate, but it's still okay to do that as long as it's only men. "Because they are not talking about you specifically". It's such crap.

I went to a Hitman game a few weeks ago. I was pretty excited to get out and watch some hockey. When I got there I sat in my seat and my friend sat in hers. I was next to a 5 years old boy and he was with his mother. I introduced myself and asked the boy who he was cheering for and we shared some smiles and cheered at some hits. After the end of the first they left and came back halfway through the second. This time the mother sat next to me. I started to talk to her too and I just got that flat empty f-off smile. Her legs were crossed and her body was as far away from me as possible. Like I had a disease. Yes, I am a stranger, yes, I am a man. No I am not a pedophile nor a rapist, but I sure felt like one that night.

The attack on the male gender and the fear that follows is the real enemy. All of these videos are fine examples of that. It's manufactured, for profit, commercial video designed to get attention, pray on fears, and profit from donation. Christina Hoff Sommers brings up a lot of this, but from the most people you talk to in forums will attack you, mock you, label you, instead of the data. What gives me hope is that many women in my social media web are pretty sick of the feminist videos as well. So I hope they keep it up and start to alienate their audience. It would be great if these extremists would go after Hollywood and the continuous use of symmetrical people over the average person. That's something I can get behind. It's why I love the BBC so much. Anyway I'm rambling.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

IF you wish to argue the merits (truthfulness) of what the young girls said, I would respectfully suggest you listen to that Christina Hoff Sommers posted within that video (and others, if you want further backup) and confirm her findings.

Plain and simple.

The rest of your post seems to suggest that you are OK with using the girls in this fashion?

Now, as for "truthfulness".

Data and statistics are very easily manipulated to show what the user desires.

Truthfully? I am a database god. I can slice and dice data to the ends of earth.

I can make you look tall or short. Thin or fat. Dumb or smart.

Take your pick, I can make a "study" look exactly as I want it to appear for my intentions.

And no, I am NOT for hire to do this for anyone. I wouldn't do it.. period.

I want data to reflect factual information that is time tested. I seek out anomalies and changes within data to see shifts. I look to ensure anomalies are not considered in reporting unless truly relevant.

What I am seeing perpetuated on the interwebs and even here (regarding this video's topic) is quite often false information. Or misleading at best.

And that does NO ONE any favours.

If that is true, then the challenge is even worse. It means I can't rely on any secondary source because they may be manipulating the statistics. I therefore need to analyze the data myself, including the methods by which it was collected. And I'll need a basic understanding of statistical analysis to do that.

All that to say, I'll almost certainly not discover the truth without a lot of effort. So unless I'm really interested in the subject matter, I'm likely not to respond to the video: after all, what can I really say without doing a lot of research first? Which is again, probably one of the main reasons you didn't get a response to this video.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

OK Ranch, from your post, you appear to be A-OK with those "cute swearing girls". Let alone the factoids they were talking about are incorrect.

Don't worry, even Obama regurgitated one of them so it must be factual and not misleading, right?

That said, I really do appreciate your feedback.

Didn't listen to any facts they said, other than swearing I didn't hear much else.
With respect to "swearing girls," well because the message didn't get to me, I didn't differentiate between that and any other crap you can see on tv or youtube.... so it was meaningless. Just watched the walking dead, flashbacks from when one girl cut up another little girl. Cute kids swearing isn't going to phase me these days when I'm not even sure what I'm watching. If it was on The National on CBC I might be shocked enough to pay attention. I can barely take online videos with much creedence these days, the medium is so full of crap I've got better things to do (but not so good that I'm not here).

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

If that is true, then the challenge is even worse. It means I can't rely on any secondary source because they may be manipulating the statistics. I therefore need to analyze the data myself, including the methods by which it was collected. And I'll need a basic understanding of statistical analysis to do that.

All that to say, I'll almost certainly not discover the truth without a lot of effort. So unless I'm really interested in the subject matter, I'm likely not to respond to the video: after all, what can I really say without doing a lot of research first? Which is again, probably one of the main reasons you didn't get a response to this video.

EXACTLY!!!

Welcome to the internet. Or any such other endeavor that purports to use an overview that is cherry picking.

Have fun with life now!

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Didn't listen to any facts they said, other than swearing I didn't hear much else.
With respect to "swearing girls," well because the message didn't get to me, I didn't differentiate between that and any other crap you can see on tv or youtube.... so it was meaningless. Just watched the walking dead, flashbacks from when one girl cut up another little girl. Cute kids swearing isn't going to phase me these days when I'm not even sure what I'm watching. If it was on The National on CBC I might be shocked enough to pay attention. I can barely take online videos with much creedence these days, the medium is so full of crap I've got better things to do (but not so good that I'm not here).

OK, so you are neutral on the girls.

Thank you for your feedback.

[Arya Stark]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Not surprised this is fake.

Why don't you take a gander at this....

BTW, it is really, really NSFW.

NSFW!

You have been warned....

NSFW!

Would love to hear your thoughts on THAT. Some other videos on that channel are.... "enlightening". Go ahead. I dare you...

OMG this video is gold. I don't know why but those 10 year old girls swearing has me laughing my ass off.

[V]

What happened to you? I remember you being cool, but you're really coming off as a bit of a nutjob here. What's going on?

[Arya Stark]

Who you referring to?

[corporatejay]

The reason your not getting any responses is because that video is complete garbage. Just as a starting point, using crime reporting stats in an admittedly underreported crime is nonsense. Not to mention "sexual assault" in most of those cases includes things like being groped on a subway which I doubt is going to get reported to the police.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Arya Stark

Who you referring to?

Shawnski I'd imagine. I think V summed up everyone's thoughts.

[JiriHrdina]

WDF is going on in this thread?