I lived in a communist country in the 80s, but we weren't happy either. Some things may have worked better than now, but many definitely didn't. Of course there is a nostalgia factor, but it doesn't count. So I'd call this bullshit and wouldn't recommend it.
we need high value content that is worth reading, not just copy of someone's rss feed. what he is doing is exactly what drives lot of people away.
So stop complaining and start producing some "high value content that is worth reading" or just return under your rock until you get a life.
Until there is proof or external verification of the results, it's just another case of Chinese propaganda.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15882023
I am not affiliated with this title in any way. I am just sharing it out of appreciation for fine work and in the hope that someone here may be interested.
I am not affiliated with this title in any way. I am just sharing it out of appreciation for fine work and in the hope that someone here may be interested.
I think that Diamanda Galas - The Litanies of Satan (or any other of her works) will be appropriate.
Silly and clumsy campaigns, even if they concern important matters, deserve ridicule, and that's exactly what we're doing here.
The thing is, there is no universal definition of pornography. It varies from country to country. In my country, it doesn't fulfill some of the criteria, in particular because:
The more important thing is that the cropped version of the picture (which was used in the research papers) does not fulfill any criteria to be classified as pornography or even as nude art. Some don't even know that this is only part of a nude photo. I saw this cropped picture in the 90s and was surprised later in the early 2000s by the full version.
I would say more. This is an example where some random nude photo became something more because it became part of science. So it's rather an example of "deobjectification" because this picture is focused on her face in the hat, and not her reproductive organs.
Regarding objectification, the picture of any kind has nothing to do with women being objectified. Any person may be objectified only by being treated by another person or group of people as an object. For example, a cleaning lady may be objectified by one employer who does not treat her like a living, feeling person, but not by another employer. The same applies to sex workers and any other profession. It is our attitude that determines whether we objectify someone, not the picture of a woman in a hat.
This is not porn; it's an art. There is nothing creepy about it. Moreover, if this picture is the reason why women aren't in this field, then there is definitely a more serious problem, but it's not where you are looking.
The Ribbon isn't the worst thing. It tried to solve the clutter of the previous interface, although I always preferred the old one.
Here is an interesting take on the problem of modern interfaces: https://datagubbe.se/decusab/