A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

General chat about fembots, technosexual culture or any other ASFR related topics that do not fit into the other categories below.
User avatarSilkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Postby Silkscreen » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:03 am

Slightly related: A recent poll "American's views on the Media" found people have most trust in … The Weather Channel. Maybe because they don't sell forecasts for truths and because meteorologists aren't exactly known for taking advantage from of the storms they predict? (though they seem, sort of, fascinated by the thing.)

Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:12 am

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Postby Uncom » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:07 am

But weather is a fake phenomenon created by the Chinese to ruin the American market.
Educate yourself, you ignorant.

User avatarRobotman
Fembot Central Staff
Posts: 7429
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 7:01 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Postby Robotman » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:14 am

I lost trust in the media in 1998 during that whole White House blowjob scandal. Every damn news outlet (and I'm in Canada!) stopped reporting on everything else for months to report on wiretaps, blue dresses, and depositions. Over fucking blowjobs. I've had utter contempt for corporate media ever since they jumped to be cheerleader's for Bush II's war against Iraq. The media only cares about selling scandal and outrage. They don't care about facts.

User avatarSilkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Postby Silkscreen » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:25 am

I just imagine a law which requires media to have the a "probalitity-of-occurence-meter" layed over all their news shows and if they hadn't collected sustainable data to backup their claims, it's required to read 0%.

Odd enough, that was good practice in the 19th century! E.g. German newspapers had put N.T. at all dubious stories, which meant "not testified". If we had such a practice today, they had to put it on their anchor's pocket square, I guess.

User avatarRobotman
Fembot Central Staff
Posts: 7429
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 7:01 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Postby Robotman » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:37 am

Well, laws governing what the media can and can't say are generally a bad idea, I think. But I've learned how to "read" (or watch, or listen) to news more critically:

1) Ask myself first of all "is this important?" Most of what is delivered as news is gossip.

2) Look for and identify the sources of information for the story. If they are anonymous or simply not revealed, the news shouldn't be seriously considered. Opinion pieces are also commonly just paraded as news.

3) Follow the money. Find out who pays for the news you're reading, and what kind of message they want to deliver to you. You can learn about their biases that way.

User avatarSilkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Postby Silkscreen » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:39 am

Oh, they can tell all the crap they want. They are just required to have it labelled "fiction" if they can't backup it happened exactly the way they described it.

Posts: 1748
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:13 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Postby Stephaniebot » Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:28 pm

Seen another article today about a gentleman who is terrified of complimenting, or talking to women for fear of ramifications. Not that anyone would want to compliment me on looks, I'm sure, but...a very sad state of affairs.

Even sadder was the number of comments by Feminazi's wanting to complain about him, for suggesting that its a bad thing

:cry:
I'm just a 'girl' who wants to become a fembot whats wrong with that?

User avatarSilkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Postby Silkscreen » Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:23 pm

Honestly, I can't understand that either. It's the same whining, just reversed direction. Boys … hey, boys! … —crickets— … look,Tits!

Okay, now that I have your attention … if you have problems complimenting women who deserve it, your mother-detector needs to be adjusted. No prob there, you have that thing built into you. All of you. But you have to understand it's a receiving end problem if it doesn't work properly. It's not women's fault if you fall for witches.*

Stay away from women with psychological problems. It's simple. You can sense it. Your mind has a detector dedicated for finding agreeable women. It's just out of tune because people told you women and men are the same. Because if you tune it to agreeable person women turn gray and uninteresting as other men are. Because that's what you do with men — you ignore them, mostly.

Are you totally, romantically moved by a woman? Does she make your heart beat harder? Does she make you sweat? Go for it. Stop thinking, damnit! :lovestruck: :lovestruck: :lovestruck:


*And I know what I'm talking about, because I am a witch. Just a nice one, who only beats you up during sex, not claiming you did, or had started it.

User avatarSilkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Postby Silkscreen » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:17 pm

Watching Weird Science again (thanks to that stupid collection of video snippets) I found its soundtrack featured O.M.D.'s Tesla Girls. Well, they also did Maid of Orleans. So much for digging tough women. :nerd:

Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:27 am
Location: The exotic occident

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Postby Miss Pris » Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:51 pm

The video has some points, but they wrongly attribute a confluence of social phenomena that existed well before the popular idea of "fembots" to recent images and ideas of gynoids. I've mentioned before on this forum that "feminism" includes SO many more forms of this critique than just the well-known varieties, such as radical feminism (which opposes fembots very strongly, as I'm sure everyone knows); as a feminist critique of popular images of women and beauty in social media, it's a fair commentary. They over-extend themselves however when they apply the current incarnation of "woman are there for men to look at" to either the machinic OR the artificial. This idea of women (and the critique of it) have been around for a VERY long time. You could even make the argument that the feminist academic critique of women's roles in society begins with Christine de Pisan in the middle ages. (Of course, I can't make the claim that the idea of an artificial person didn't exist yet, as Heron probably created such automata in ancient Europe, and the story of Galatea probably pre-dated him - before anyone jumps in with that - but I doubt these ideas were daily talking points.) Trying to blame "fembots" for something people previously blamed on other groups, images, power dynamics, etc. is just going to make people's eyes roll. We hear this argument again and again. Fill in the blank for what single-factor issue is "wrong" with society this week.

If someone's doing feminist critique "right" then they should be welcome to alternative interpretations and well-aware that few social phenomena have just one cause. There's always a deeper history to look at, and these vloggers (which is what they are essentially - no matter who's footing the bill) ignored it so they could make a sound-chunk video. Everything has a sound-chunk video about it now. As the saying goes about opinions... but now, all the assholes are video-capable.

PreviousNext

Return to Discussion



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest