top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 66 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Why the bunny girl outfit. Bunny girls are liars?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    For-profit media sells what people will buy. Hollywood movies tend to put women in revealing outfits (men too really). A guy wearing a drab, comfortable t-shirt draws much less attention. Though Don't Look Up was a fantastic exception:-). Still, all else being equal, the barriers are higher for the right booth than the left bc the inherent interest factor is lesser.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Ooh, nice take. Still don't get why the bunny girl specifically. I guess for artistic style.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Meh, it's a Japanese thing, and therefore Japanophiles enjoy using that iconic imagry around the world. Japan only more recently started leaving behind their extremely heavy prudishness, similar to the 1960s hippy movement in most Western nations, and so this is their version of a "scantily-clad female", dressed up specifically with the intent of causing excitement. I doubt many people ever physically wore such an outfit, although the way it looks here makes it look more like something you'd see in a Vegas-style casino (irl image, mostly SFW but still out of sensitivity I am merely linking rather than auto-displaying it here), which is an exact analogy to the more anime & video-game style.

    Also btw there is a male version - e.g. the chip & dale style. Example irl image. Notice how both the above for woman and this here uses fishnets, either as tights or in lieu of a shirt.

    The point though is that they are "dressed to impress", and like not in a business suit kinda way, but rather to titillate and excite the audience, even if just shy of the NSFW line. Joss Whedon's (and so many others) "lens flares" in movies or is a non-person example - something that adds little to nothing in the way of substance, and in fact somewhat even if only slightly distracts from such - and instead is purely for style. Another example would be those wing / wind-spoilery things on cars, which if you are doing city driving you will literally never get any functional benefit from whatsoever, yet they help them sell b/c it pushes an "image" to the potential purchaser.

    TLDR: one way to think about it is that comforting lies are style over substance, while unpleasant truths are substance over style. Though really that's kind of a distracting dimension, since no matter how you package the latter people don't tend to enjoy it, and vice versa for the former... - but still, those thoughts do often travel together.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 49 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Temporarily embarrassed millionaire syndrome. "I can't vote against what the rich people want, because what if I become rich some day?" Completely missing that they, in the course of their entire lives, will not make as much as what most of the rich assholes of the world make in a day/hour/minute/second.

    EAT THE RICH.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Basic services should all be free to any human.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    Yeah, the spirit of your comment i agree with, but not the letter.

    Nothing should be completely free, because nothing is free. Water needs processing, electricity needs a grid, sewage needs treatment, etc.

    Basic things should be affordable for all: housing, water, electricity, internet, food etc.

    But "free" creates incentives to be careless with resources. Which is counterproductive to making sure they are available for all at affordable prices.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Hard to believe people work sixty hours. Got a decent living over here in Europe and am currently reducing from 40 to 35, just because.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Maybe you forgot to type '/s'?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago

    Without (real or artificial) scarcity profits would go down, and if profits go down stop growing the-best-possible-system© just collapses.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    The future is already here. It's just unevenly distributed.- William Gibson

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because old people aren't looking at tweets like this.

    It's just our generation that has this as a standard view, and now we're reaching the point where our generation will take over.

    And there's going to be some changes, let me tell you.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago

    Many great reasons raised to explain why the current system persists so its clear to me that there isn't just a single roadblock. One reason, in my mind, is the challenge of reaching consensus. Even in small groups this can be problematic and more so for an entire population. It frustrates me no end that often small disagreements in the details of an idea is enough to prevent any positive change, even though at a macro scale the idea is good and universally supported.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because capitalism demands infinite growth, forever, which means even when we're post-scarcity we need to keep working forever to continue growing beyond what is necessary.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    at this point in time.... All hunger, all deprivation, all poverty

    Is because SOMEONE wants it so. Not because circumstances make it so

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago
    [–] 5 points 2 years ago
    [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Clearly it's because of all those immigrants stealing your share of the crumbs.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago*

    Because every man-hour freed by automation is a man-hour of opportunity to exploit and profit elsewhere.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Do you know how long it takes for crops to grow?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What are you implying with that comment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That long work days are still necessary, technology isnt fully there to automate everything

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    have you seen modern farming? these days there are tractors that can be set to follow a route and the driver just has to monitor things.

    yeah it's not completely automated, but it's extremely disingenuous to imply that we're closer to traditional farming than we are to full automation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Always remember the dishwasher and why it was invented. Then apply that to EVERYTHING man-made. It's alway to save time, for someone who is not you.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›