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.
Post Reply
Extyr
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:30 pm
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Extyr » Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:18 pm

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=UEtZcs1yj3M

This time fembots are accused of leading women to transform themselves into vacuitous bimbos for men's enjoyment or something. It's mostly typical pop-culture feminist bullshit. Sad to see even the New York times embracing this trend...

User avatar
Robotman
Posts: 7958
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 7:01 pm
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Robotman » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:01 pm

Lol, the NYT is BuzzFeed now.

User avatar
TheShoveller
Fembot Central Staff
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 3:47 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by TheShoveller » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:50 pm

Yeah, they've been pretty crummy for a whole now. Without delving into politics... this doesn't surprise me one bit.

User avatar
tinyspider
Posts: 486
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Colombia, South America
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by tinyspider » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:16 pm

LOL the video slut shames Kylie Jenner for being "fake", dehumanizes her for changing her appearance "like software" and not even 10 seconds later claims that third wave feminism urges women "to take control of their own sexuality". The authors apparently can have the cake and eat it as well ...

User avatar
Uncom
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:12 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Uncom » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:59 am

Who even takes the New York Times seriously anymore.
They‘re the same „news outlet“ who just hired Sarah Jeong, who has posted THOUSANDS of tweets bashing white people on her social media.

Image
They fired Quinn Norton for doing the same but with black people. (Rightfully so, racism has no place in honest journalism.)
NYT are biased, they have double standards and do their best to make the public hate them.

Regarding the article, it‘s this video all over again.
https://youtu.be/6g0wN_oQCmA


Also fun fact on the side, Candace Owens literally replaced the words "white" with "black" in Sarah Jeongs tweets and posted them on her Twitter.
Guess what.
She got banned for 12 hours.
Image
Last edited by Uncom on Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Robotman
Posts: 7958
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 7:01 pm
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Robotman » Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:36 am

Wow. That's fucked up.

User avatar
Stephaniebot
Posts: 1918
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:13 pm
Technosexuality: Transformation
Identification: Android
Gender: Transgendered
Location: Huddersfield
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Stephaniebot » Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:10 am

All I can say is, if this is a sign of where the world is heading, feminist crazy wise, I'm glad I'm old!
I'm just a 'girl' who wants to become a fembot whats wrong with that?

User avatar
Silkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm
Technosexuality: Transformation
Identification: Cyborg
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Silkscreen » Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:19 am

@Uncom, on the "left", they declared double standards the norm long long ago. They call it "balance" and it means their hate is rightful because they wield no power. It's all about justifying underachievement and being a crybaby about it. Because then … you would need life assistance and that's what they want to sell to you. Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.

About the video:
  • just the second shot is from Weird Science. Did she ever watch Weird Science? If so, when did she realize Lisa is the tough woman always envisioned by women's right activists? Uh, and how the nerds Gary and Wyatt frowned upon those like deer in headlights, then settled on "a handful" just because … certainly, she could not stand it up to the final scene, when Gary and Wyatt got the sweet human girlfriends they originally were after but who were dating assholes. And how their big sister Lisa headed for the next bunch of too sweet boys to turn them into men.
  • the usual bullshit about technical devices with female voices or female appearance. This is done because of agreeability. Women are accepted both by women and men. Men aren't accepted by men. Hell, even the canaries I owned knew that! And their males are most beautiful. And they hate each other.
  • "men can engineer" – LOL – women can’t? Well I certainly can. The Chinese cybergirl in the video can, too. She's an engineer as I am. Then, should I make my own malebot? What's the point in that? She doesn't. I don't do either. We both do accessoirs to turn ourselves into sexier creatures. And that's because men are available. Always. That's their purpose and they know it. They are already robots who conform to my wishes. The reason why men are fascinated about female robots and about using them is the lack of reciprocity in man-woman relations. I control all the sex. All of it. And I have to because males are just a boiling pot of fuck who cannot. Well, at least behind their gentleman attitude. I can totally understand why men want to have more sex than I can handle. They are selected by evolution to be that way. It's the way they create most offspring, and vital one.
  • Social media fembots play on the anxiety women are fake. Yeah, totally.I can also totally understand why a lot of women see fembots as a threat. It's the same threat as any woman more attractive than they are. That's how I was selected by evolution. Because my mother needed a man to create offspring and she had him to stay with her to keep it alive. So she had to execute both beauty and agreeability. Because that's what human men are excellent in, and what's their function in sex – they can tell a woman who is both vital and who has no psychological issues which may harm the children. They know how to tell a mother.
I totally dig her hairdo, sweater and the shirt of the bearded guy. It looks like they fell out of the Bionic Woman series.

User avatar
Uncom
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:12 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Uncom » Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:50 am

Yeah, I was already aware of all the bullshit that „the left“ (I put it in quotation marks on purpose, as I‘m probably more leftist myself) spews out of their ass at times.

It only grinds my gears that they somehow think it‘s okay to silence/belittle or discredit a white person for the colour of their skin, which literally is what they‘re protesting against, racism.

Their reasoning? „White people haven‘t suffered enough. / White people were slave owners.“ et cetera.
Both insanely retarded arguments.
(See Poland in World War Two and the Barbary Trade).
Oh yeah, and don‘t even get me started on „White Privilege.“

Pretty ironic considering their goal is „tolerance“.

/endpoliticalrant

User avatar
Robotman
Posts: 7958
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 7:01 pm
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Robotman » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:03 am

I don't think this is so much a "left vs right" thing as an "authoritarian vs libertarian" thing. Many of the people making the biggest noise over nonsense while claiming to be doing it for the best reasons strike me as those who would silence and rule over others if given half the chance. You can spot this by their reaction to humour. Autocratic dictators aren't known for their tolerance to jokes.

User avatar
Silkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm
Technosexuality: Transformation
Identification: Cyborg
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Silkscreen » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:31 am

It's the very same for women-related topics. They victimize women as they victimize non-whites*. It's their business model because you can raise a lot of funds and high-paying bullshit jobs for flacks, equal opportunity commisioners and other useless people. Talking bullshit the whole time is part of the job. It is the job.

I can't pity women who fall for that, because it's so obvious. Screaming hot bullshit, all the time. It's just the same as Fox News, Alex Jones and other right-wing bullshitters. It's an insult on your intelligence.

(Did I mention bullshit? I guess it's not like beetlejuice … beetlejuice … beetlejuice … :devil: )

* whoever that may be, because e.g. in the 18th century people of English origin in the U.S. even complained about German-origin "brownies" who were ruining the country

User avatar
Silkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm
Technosexuality: Transformation
Identification: Cyborg
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Silkscreen » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:49 am

Robotman wrote:I don't think this is so much a "left vs right" thing as an "authoritarian vs libertarian" thing.
You are correct on that, hence the quotes. To make it even more perplexing, those people think they are "liberals". Because they are fighting for the oppressed, something like that.

I do not fight for anyone but those who assemble behind me.

User avatar
Uncom
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:12 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Uncom » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:53 am

Though in the end, the only women who feel threatened by sexbots are the same ones whose only appealing quality is „I can have sex with you“.
So nine times out of ten, they‘re not worth your time.


Then again there‘s probably gonna be a whole sub-movement pulling an „Android Lives Matter“ when we get to the point of ultra-realistic humanoid droids. So Detroit: Become Human might not be such a dumb concept after all.

User avatar
Silkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm
Technosexuality: Transformation
Identification: Cyborg
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Silkscreen » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:11 am

I do not think any woman is more afraid of sexbots as they were afraid of hookers. You don't want your husband to have one at home, or at your leisure residence, and that was it. Maybe he let a dominatrix bash him, in her lair? Well, that may be fun but if you aren't into it … as long as he's caring for you and the children … it's just more sex than you ever want to handle.

Please watch the video again and replace all the occurences of "sexbot" with "hooker", and you see the cheap showmanship.

Duuuuu, hookers … bad thing, hookers … duuuuuuu … men only like … hookers … duuuuu … it's the coming false standard … hookers … duuuuuu … all women must be afraid of … hookers :-S

It's so ridiculous.

User avatar
Uncom
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:12 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Uncom » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:28 am

That is debatable. As fembots might be able to do your dishes, cook, clean etc. ,in the future, which hookers don‘t. Plus they won‘t complain. They‘re „the perfect partners“.
Women who don‘t have anything else than sex to offer their partners are probably gonna be more afraid of that than of a lady who charges you for every night spent with her.

User avatar
Saya
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 5:04 pm
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Android
Gender: Female
Location: Right here, silly.
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Saya » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:38 am

Robotman wrote:I don't think this is so much a "left vs right" thing as an "authoritarian vs libertarian" thing.
I would argue that it's more an example of entitled idiots talking out of their asses most of the time, on both "sides" regardless of political ideology or social mores for the sake of making clickbait and getting attention.

There's always going to be people attempting to claim that some paraphilia or sexual lifestyle is going to somehow cause the downfall and endangerment of our society. Be it arch-conservatives arguing that homosexuality will result in the erosion of "family values" (whatever those are supposed to be, anyway), or hyper-leftists arguing that BDSM is an endorsement of violence against women. Both fall prey to the biased, skewed thinking that there's one root cause for a particular pitfall of society, perceived or actual, when in reality it is a host of other causes ranging from societal pressures to the state of the economy.
"If the time should ever come when what is now called science, thus familiarized to men, shall be ready to put on, as it were, a form of flesh and blood, the Poet will lend his divine spirit to aid the transfiguration, and will welcome the Being thus produced, as a dear and genuine inmate of the household of man."
- William Wordsworth

User avatar
Silkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm
Technosexuality: Transformation
Identification: Cyborg
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Silkscreen » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:43 am

Uncom, but you don't expect your wife to do the housework, do you? That's what you pay the janitor for.

hint hint.

User avatar
Robotman
Posts: 7958
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 7:01 pm
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Robotman » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:55 am

Saya wrote:There's always going to be people attempting to claim that some paraphilia or sexual lifestyle is going to somehow cause the downfall and endangerment of our society. Be it arch-conservatives arguing that homosexuality will result in the erosion of "family values" (whatever those are supposed to be, anyway), or hyper-leftists arguing that BDSM is an endorsement of violence against women. Both fall prey to the biased, skewed thinking that there's one root cause for a particular pitfall of society, perceived or actual, when in reality it is a host of other causes ranging from societal pressures to the state of the economy.
Most definitely. Arguments consisting of "TEH GAYS MARRYING WILL CAUSE YOUR CHILDREN TO MARRY ANIMLS!" come from the exact place of ignorance as "TEH SEXBOTS WILL CAUSE TEH HANDMAIDS TAIL!" It's all complete nonsense. That's why I'm mostly down on the bottom end of this chart. You have to leave people to be free to do what they want to do, unless they are actually (and verifiably by fact) causing harm to other people (and not just the nebulous concept of "society" or "culture").

User avatar
Silkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm
Technosexuality: Transformation
Identification: Cyborg
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Silkscreen » Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:43 am

Ignorance would be bliss. That's why I apply ignorance to those fearmongering lunatics.

User avatar
Robotman
Posts: 7958
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 7:01 pm
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by Robotman » Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:49 am

They don't seem happy though - quite the opposite. They seem like the most miserable people in the world, despite all the advantages they enjoy of living in one of the most free and open and egalitarian societies the world has ever known. All they seem to do is project their own prejudices and hate on everyone around them.

User avatar
Silkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm
Technosexuality: Transformation
Identification: Cyborg
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by 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.)

User avatar
Uncom
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:12 am
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by 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 avatar
Robotman
Posts: 7958
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 7:01 pm
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by 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 avatar
Silkscreen
Alternate account
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:25 pm
Technosexuality: Transformation
Identification: Cyborg
Gender: Female
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by 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 avatar
Robotman
Posts: 7958
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 7:01 pm
Technosexuality: Built
Identification: Human
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: A fembot bashing video by the New York Times

Post by 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.

Post Reply
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests