From: DarthEddie [#2] 27 Apr 23:08 To: Dark King (DARKKING) [#1] 28 Apr 0:13
Boobquake is stupid for the same reason it's stupid when those idiots jump off that bridge in Oxford of Cambridge or whatever it is and the papers all print pictures of girls with their skirts flying up.
From: Jez (THE_HATSTAND) [#7] 1 May 7:07 To: DarthEddie [#2] 1 May 12:01
quote:
Boobquake is stupid for the same reason it's stupid when those idiots jump off that bridge in Oxford of Cambridge or whatever it is and the papers all print pictures of girls with their skirts flying up
From: DarthEddie [#8] 1 May 12:32 To: Jez (THE_HATSTAND) [#7] 1 May 13:50
Reasons Boobquake is stupid:
1. No one was listening to what that guy was saying anyway. It's not like heads of state were starting to go "hey, maybe women do cause earthquakes." It's like the "God Hates Fags" people. You don't have to argue the issue with them because they're insane and all you can do is publicise their lunacy.
2. As ftookl said, even if what this guy said held any water at all, Boobquake doesn't quite deal with what he said. Not only are they rebutting something that didn't need rebutting, they're not even quite handling the issue anyway.
3. It's naive to talk women across the globe to start shaking their boobs about and not expect all the men on the globe to go "TITS!" and then completely fail engage with the issue any further. All they are doing is pointlessly sexualizing this group of women and adding to the disturbingly widely held belief that women are pointless unless they're in some sort of overtly sexual context.
3a. This is underlined by the amount of women that ended up posting supportive messages from the sidelines but who felt they couldn't take part because their cleavage wasn't adequate to make this supposedly political statement.
Reasons why it's stupid when those idiots jump off that bridge in Oxford or Cambridge or whatever it is and the papers all print pictures of girls with their skirts flying up:
1. Everyone spends all year rightly making fun of The Sun and the Star and Nuts magazine and what have you but as soon as all the idiots jump off that fucking bridge all the broad sheet journos start posting up skirt shots on their front pages. This suggests to me that their criticism of page 3 is less of a genuine statement of disapproval and more a manifestation of jealousy of how they have to pretend to be journalists all year while the tabloid people all just get to look at tits.
2. There are already lots of pictures taken up girls' skirts. The internet must contain more than anyone could look at in a life time. There's no reason to print more of them in the times.
3. It's just more pointless sexualization like with Boobquake. How can you not find it depressing? Every year a bunch of idiots jump off a bridge and every year a gang of dirty old men trudge down there and take photos in the hope of seeing some pants.
From: Grog [#12] 1 May 16:31 To: DarthEddie [#8] 1 May 17:15
As is always the way, the majority of May Day dicks this morning were male. Also, as the bridge isn't that high and you'd have to stand in the river to get notable shots from underneath it's actually pretty tricky to get upskirt pictures during the occasion.
Edit: I agree it is stupid that people jump off the bridge, but just because it's shallow, so you're probably going to damage your legs, and it's the Cherwell just before it joins the Thames, so you're probably going to poison yourself.
From: Jez (THE_HATSTAND) [#14] 1 May 22:50 To: Grog [#12] 1 May 23:32
Why don't the police just let them do it and fish out the bodies later? There'd be far less issues about it that way. And I really hate to see cops in full body armour and stuff trying to chase after fit young students in trainers. It's pointless and makes them look stupid.
From: Grog [#15] 1 May 23:37 To: Jez (THE_HATSTAND) [#14] 2 May 8:07
I think they stop people initially so they're seen to be trying to prevent it, which they keep up when it's just one or two people at a time, but as soon as enough people have a go at once they stand back and let them get on with trying to kill themselves.
From: Matt (DODESKA) [#16] 2 May 0:05 To: Grog [#12] 2 May 13:53
That article says "The water is about 2ft (60cm) deep".
Those people must be very small then as they disappear under the water rather than go in up to their thighs.
From: Grog [#19] 2 May 14:05 To: Matt (DODESKA) [#16] 2 May 14:49
Indeed, as it's been raining in the last few days the river was probably higher than normal, and I'd expect it's not a very even bed anyway. Both of those could be used to back up the claim in the article that it was luck they weren't injured (although the first of them arguably isn't because you can know that in advance). However, you could see them stand up again in the video so I'd guess it was around 4ft deep where they were landing, which still isn't that much.