App Store Pulls 'Barbie' Plastic-Surgery App Following Backlash

The First Lady of the United States just said:

"Women should have the freedom to do whatever they need to do to feel good about themselves,

So that would include plastic surgery. So why pull the App? I mean if women should be able to do "anything" to feel good then "whatever" includes plastic surgery. So which is it?

Twitter's Block

So Twitter changed the behavior of blocking and people are upset.

Back when I was on Twitter I had blocked and been blocked. No big deal. Twitter represents some of the worst aspects of people. First problem: People thought that "Their" twitter timeline was "theirs". Firstly, Twitter is a free online service owned by Twitter and not any of the individual users. The users of Twitter generate content for Twitter, which is then used by Twitter to generate advertising revenue. Twitter is about as much yours as the dollar in my pocket is yours. Or for a better analogy, Twitter is yours about as much as the apartment you rent each month is yours.

Secondly on this "my timeline" thing: If you have a public account, then anything you say there is about the same as speaking in a public forum. Anyone can "hear" you and is free to respond to your public pronouncements. If you don't like being responded to in public then don't speak in public. Seems simple but a LOT of people don't get that.

So here comes blocking. When I did the blocking all I was interested in was not seeing the dumb ass comments reach my timeline. Here I use "my" as my subscription rather than my property. I could care less about what or whether the person I had blocked could no longer see what I was saying. After all, I made "public" posts that ANYONE could see anyway.

But I think I understand the real reason behind the uproar over the blocking change. See there are a group of people who like to block and report people who have, shall we say, differing opinions on certain topics. In fact some of these people have created an app that will add these people to a block list for all subscribers. What this amounts to are people deciding that they want to be little censor police. Not only do they not want to "hear" what others are saying, they want to deprive those persons from being able to "hear" and respond.

I think Twitter's reasoning is quite right. If you have a public account ('cause you're looking for attention anyway) you shouldn't be able to prevent people from seeing what you wrote. Seeing what you wrote is NOT harassment. Commenting on what you wrote in public back in public is not harassment. bombarding you with commentary after asking to not be addressed is harassment. The new "blocking" does this.

This reminds me of the recent request for Twitter to add or change how you report abuse. Apparently some people, particularly in the UK were perturbed by a number of rape threats made to them by random twitter persons. In the UK making a rape threat is illegal. Rather than report the accounts to the police, the persons in question wanted Twitter to change how one reports abuse. The two questions I had were: 1) What exactly was wrong with the original reporting mechanism (I used the block and report all the time on tweet deck). 2) If one took the threats seriously, why not report to the police? Certainly a visit by the local constable would be far more effective a deterrent for actual rapists than a twitter ban (which of course could be removed by creating another account).

What a lot of these complaints (to a company that is neither profitable or charging to use its product) seem to me are about self centered people who are used to being able to demand things just because. I can understand a paying customer complaining about a product they paid for, but a service that is free? Take what you get or move along. I hear Weibo is a great service.

Ultimately there was nothing wrong with the change. The problem here are users who wish to police other people in a public forum because they do not understand the meaning of public.

And The Men What?

Reading this piece on Indian dating (marriage) sites I found the following:

What those factors are, exactly, has changed as the country has, but the crux of the matter remains constant: if you’re an Indian woman, it’s statistically likely that your parents will choose the man with whom you spend the rest of your life.

Think about that statement there.

Done?

See the problem?

No?

OK. Marriage is a union of two (or more) persons. So if in India a marriage is arranged then not only is the Indian woman going to spend the rest of her life with a man that was arranged for her, but HE is going to spend the rest of his life with her.

Since that is the case why focus on the "Indian woman" rather than the arranged couple? Oh right, no need to consider what men are thinking or doing because all they are doing is oppressing.

Of course then there is the color matter.

Sure, I’d have my points of appeal, namely in the sections reserved for Education (Bachelor’s) and Complexion (Very Fair).

But we'll leave that for another blog and another blog entry.

Lack of female leadership in Silicon Valley “just as bad” as Wall Street (?)

Question for Salon.com: Is it possible for them to post a piece about women that does not include sexist and unsupported commentary about men?

Take the commentary found in this piece from Salon:

Twitter Inc.’s lack of women on its board is “a joke,” showing that Silicon Valley is no better than Wall Street when it comes to female representation, said Sallie Krawcheck, a former executive at Bank of America Corp.

A "joke" to whom? Why? Oh because there are no women on the board. Well there are no black people either. Will Salon allot space for someone to write about that too? Anyway. Why is it such a joke? Read on.

Twitter, the microblogging site that raised $2.09 billion in a initial public offering this month, has an all-male, seven- member board.

Does the above sound like "a joke" to you? a company is making 2.09 billion. Offers a free service that is used worldwide. That's a joke?

Twitter has said it’s in discussions to diversify its board.

Why? It just gathered 2.09 billion dollars as is. Why should it do anything different? No, really? WHY? And if it is a matter of "representation" then I think we should force Twitter to hire black and Hispanic board members, Well I don't know about the latter, but I know about the former. But here's the sexist kicker:

Women think differently than men and “can see problems they don’t see,” said Browner, who was an adviser to President Barack Obama and administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 1993 to 2001.

Really? Women, by virtue of having ovaries and titties "can see problems they [men] don't see." No really. That's some sexist shit. Don't see it. Well let's just change up the sentence:

"Men think differently from women and "can see problems they don't see."

Do you even THINK such a statement would be tolerated? How about this:

"Whites think differently than blacks and "can see problems they don't see".

No really. Do you even THINK such a sentence would see the light of day in Salon? Of course not but you can get a woman to make a blatantly sexist comment and it goes unchallenged by anyone on the editorial staff. How the fuck does this happen? Back to Twitter though.

I repeat. Twitter had an IPO that netted 2.09 billion bucks. Exactly WHAT problems does Twitter need to see that the board isn't seeing that this woman knows about? It seems to me that the board of Twitter is doing a bang up job.

Here's how you get onto a board or become CEO: Start your own business. Create your own product and work damn hard. Then instead of attempting to shame people into bringing you on board, people will come to you. Take it from the black guy, people HATE when they are forced to deal with you because of some physical attribute rather than because your fucking good at what you do.

So back to the question:

Can Salon.com write an article about women in [enter business here] that does not include sexist comments about men or at least challenges them when they appear in quoted material?

Microsoft Publishes Sexist Form Letter To Help Dudes Convince Women To Let Them Buy An Xbox One

So Alex Wilhelm (among others I suppose) is upset at Microsoft's letter than men can give to their alleged female partner in order to get them to agree to an XBox One purchase. Among the sexist things listed by the author:

1) Women don't own consoles.

2) It's Hetero-normative. (and all this time you thought the majority of humans, as in the vast majority are heterosexual and that heterosexuality is how the species [naturally] reproduces).

3) Women are the only ones with families they want to talk to.

But what the author fails to notice, how I do not know, is the very idea that a grown ass man has to ask ANYONE for permission to spend his money as he see's fit.

That's called Misandry. Thank you very much. And I find that quite offensive.

Note to Microsoft and Alex Wilhelm. I'm a grown ass man. If I want an XBox One (or any other item for that matter) I will simply purchase it and bring it home. I will consider its impact on the home I share with my wife/girlfriend, but she doesn't get veto power over the use of my money because THAT is sexist.

Thank you.

Lesson From NY Police Officer Beatdown

1) I have a hard time believing that a NYPD sergeant did not know the cardinal rule of conflict: Never turn your back on someone menacing you. Seriously folks: Do not turn your back on someone who is threatening you.

2) Why does the camera man think the entire event is funny? And that whole "World Star" comment? Yeah we know what this is about. You wanna know why there is so much violent crime in black communities (even though the perp here was not black)? It is because too many of us think the violence is funny until we (or someone we care about) are the victims. That's why the camera man shouted "World Star" because the world star audience will undoubtedly find it highly entertaining.

Sexism [again] At 60 Minutes

So there I was enjoying a 60 minutes piece on Lamborghinis I was accosted by some sexist commentary that went unchallenged.

Say's a floor manager as to why the coach building is all men and the interior workers are all women:

I can tell you this. We really need women on material because the precision that the women have, unfortunately we ah as men we don't have....not the precision tha [can't make out] to create a masterpiece like our interiors

No seriously. He said that.

Never mind that right before that piece of shit was said, there was narration and video of men putting together pieces of the vehicles with exacting standards (according to the narration). Placing and aligning glass. torquing bolts and nuts to standards that anyone who works on cars knows is important. Why the hell would this man insult these workers by saying they lacked "precision"?

I don't know Lambo's history but I wonder how long they have been making cars with male interior makers before women came in? And if there was such a time, are they saying that work was inferior (taking into account changes in tech)?

How about this: Since Lambo does not use robotics to make cars and many of the parts are heavy, it makes sense that the men, who are generally stronger than women, do the heavy work and the women do the light work. Why not just say that? It's the most likely truth and it doesn't disrespect either sex. Each according to their ability.

Think about it. If the women were so superior in their "precision" wouldn't the manager want them doing both the interior and exterior? Who volunteers to put sloppy workers on the line when one could have better, more precise workers on it?

So yet another example of sexism directed against men that gets the media pass and a chuckle.