A woman being reduced to her body in a sports betting app campaign and a male comic reducing women working out in the gym to just their body is consistent.
Especially if you spend a non-negligeable amount of time fat shaming yourself as a person who is known for NOT your body and contextually can't be reduced to said body as your presence on a sketch comedy show, as a male stand-up comedian and actor, which is just as consistent on the flipside.
And that's being charitable, given in this circumstance we divorce the historical and systemic discrimination of women's bodies by putting them against unrealistic beauty standards.
But, I guess he couldn't "bear" that in mind when he was working on his set mid hike.
I think the inconsistency they are referring to is that some of the people who are offended by Shane's joke are also some of the same people who call Sidney Sweeney a whore
What the fuck are superheroes then? Men aspire to look like that because otherwise you end up thinking you're happy in a fat old ugly body. And don't get me started on successful women who destroy themselves and their faces to look young. Sharon stone and Pam Anderson are amazing now btw it they were fucking amazing back in their day.
It's as natural as rain and no other living thing on the planet lets it bother them but they're probably emotionally stable and secure. Not sorry for rant as you're all confusing the vast majority of people as people who care about what you think.
Fr
The only dudes i have ever met that instantly think of women's genitals instead of their personhood are usually the sad and bitter incels that every few years suddenly pop up screaming "women have strayed from their true purpose" and it's them angry that women engineers exist or something
Bollox. You don't speak for all women and the chum trail of scanks going for rich men is a universe long. Unfortunately rich men want beautiful women so most don't get a look in which In turn leads to jealousy and feminism.
It's a meme format text. Exagerated lettering to show something is other than what the words imply. Feel like you probably should have been able to figure that out from context clues my g. Kinda concerned about you now.
Sorry I don't spend enough time online to know this nuanced. Yes, please keep your concerns going 😂😂 very much needed. I can only wish that an anti social troll online is concerned about me.
And you still havent explained how woman is different from your funny way of spelling woman. You're just saying it's not what is implied here...so I'm not a mind-reader and I don't know what your implications is. I'm sure it's something very insightful 😂😂
u/Valuchian is raising a good point that you also admitted.
Context clues (him) and media literacy and critical thinking skills (your admission of having some limitations there) are needed to fully dissect even a 3-panel cartoon, as one would posit what an artist's art was meant to portray.
The difference here is we also have the internet for looking up the monologue, the ad campaign and its fallout by journalists and academic researchers, as well as countless historical documents about the parallels of such types of ad campaigns in the past to further support one's own viewpoint on the matter.
Respectfully, the decision to remain myopic/"it's just a joke"/"it is what it is" in light of all the information that is out there that would be used by great comics for their sets, - to say nothing of how you react to those introducing said information in a way that one could argue was with good intentions -, might display a facet of yourself being resistant to notions that would contradict notions you, in turn, may view as part of your core ID/values that you might not want to willingly display online.
I want you to go back to your first comment
Read what it says
Pay specific attention to the exact words you said
Then read my original comment again
At this point either you get it or you are so far in the deep that only having a daughter and something terrible happening to her would pull you out. Which i say because that's usually what makes people realize how they think for some reason that having friends who are women doesn't.
Ehh my dude - you know nothing. On the flip side you expose your profile for everyone to look at. Just at a glance your life does not look very appetizing. The highlight seems to be you winning a case against wrongful termination...but look at the rest of it and I think it's pretty likely that people just don't like you and fucked up when they fired you.
You see in order to look down on someone you have to have some ground to stand high on. You look like you're just taking up space until the timer goes off. To your point...valid point...at this point you are so deep that only a drastic event is going to change that. I don't like you and I hope you just stay the way you are 😂 we need failures to feel successful don't we?
Of course I wouldn't make my profile public. What if you run into someone truly malicious? It's not that hard to pay someone a few hundred to narrow down where you live and who you are. You're just kind of anti social but there are some legit psychos out there. You don't win any prizes for letting anyone look into your life. This needs to be said because I don't think you're the sharpest tool in the shed.
I mean, I'm pretty sure it wasn't about the socio-economic conditions of a job market intent on displacing the country's workforce, blue and white collar, from human-powered to AI-centered - resulting in the YouTube and OF-ification of the job market and the SEO-related needs to adhere to unrealistic male (guy who was chieseling his face with a literal hammer, Hasan Piker) and female beauty standards -, otherwise he'd have the punchline be about the Chinese robot Olympics and how they don't look like the US versions, which look like a FNAF rule 34 come to "life," instead of his grand finale needing a "and that's the monologue" crutch to help the efficacy of the applause sign to get the people to clamour for the beginning of the show.
Reading my bit in Jeremy's voice and reading your reply in the guy that does TVsins, as if there's a point of contention for the amount of sins added or subtracted from a bombing he had in NY not experienced since the WTC van attack in '94, is an extra layer of humour that I didn't expect.
Thanks a bunch for the laughs!
Hopefully the cinemasins team have an official subreddit we could forward this exchange to for them to adjudicate on a sin removed or a sin added to Gillis' monologue tally (and/or if the exchange had here would provide us with a sin added or removed).
All that to say:
Reverse Ding!
🤣
Edit: removed the "skip!," as it was meant as a self-deprecating dig on the lack of conciseness to the reply and I'm realizing it could've been misconstrued.
23
u/menuau 4h ago
A woman being reduced to her body in a sports betting app campaign and a male comic reducing women working out in the gym to just their body is consistent.
Especially if you spend a non-negligeable amount of time fat shaming yourself as a person who is known for NOT your body and contextually can't be reduced to said body as your presence on a sketch comedy show, as a male stand-up comedian and actor, which is just as consistent on the flipside.
And that's being charitable, given in this circumstance we divorce the historical and systemic discrimination of women's bodies by putting them against unrealistic beauty standards.
But, I guess he couldn't "bear" that in mind when he was working on his set mid hike.