Content warning: This post contains graphic language, slurs and triggering content
… They are indeed not kidding. On the one hand, depressing. On the other hand, major games media covering this stuff and acknowledging that, no, this isn’t “normal”, this is very one-sided.
They closed comments because, guess what, the comments were horrible.
Some friends of mine curated a blog containing the unsolicited messages female gamers would receive just for being female. They regularly got comments from men who had no idea the kind of savagery that’s out there. To be a woman in video games is to be perceived as a threat to be put down and an object to be acquired or destroyed.
Your friends are awesome people, and you can tell ‘em I said so. Not that they have any particular reason to care what I think.
But yeah, I have pointed people to that on a number of occasions.
it’s not enough for me to refrain from harrassing women; all that’s needed for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing. i have to do more than be respectful myself. i won’t team with anyone who talks shit to/about women in a game. i won’t stay in a guild with them. i won’t help them find things, trade with them, or basically give them any positive interaction at all.
i don’t expect that any individual adolescent fucktruck will figure out he’s getting stonewalled for being a sexist little shit and change his ways, but if enough gamers get in the habit of cutting those jerks off, the culture will begin to change.
The television counts among a handful of designs that most dramatically changed 20th-century society. As this illustrated poster by Reddit user CaptnChristiana visualizes, the design has evolved mightily since the boxy retro contraptions of yesteryear, like the Emyvisor and the Marconi. With flatscreens and high-definition displays that can seem crisper and more colorful than reality itself, 21st-century viewers are comparatively spoiled.
Shit like this is amazing. Technology is amazing. We take it for granted. Like, people used to watch Mr. Ed in a 12 inch screen. Now I game in HD on a 42” flat screen mounted on a wall.
Goodnight and by that I mean I will roll around in bed for 2 hours and slowly die
please stay strong. So u are 101.3% pregnant?so what. All that means to me is JEHOVAH has 101.3% a plan for you.
Please keep my very pregnant friend in UR thoughts and prayers everyone
Is no one going to talk about this? No?
My friend Ennan took this on Adox Colour Implosion. He runs Photoghost, an independent photofinishing lab in Aberdeen, Scotland. I think I may be paying them a visit soon to stock up on some of their more “specialist” film.
They make little to no money at Photoghost but their passion for analogue and determination in the face of failure keeps this little hub alive. Check them out.
When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.
now that’s what photography should be about… not a black and white picture of someone’s shoes
The top picture is full of M&M’s. They’re bule, red, orange, green, yellow, and brown.
But in the bottom picture we clearly see there’s white, pink, and even purple candies in the bowl.
The bottom picture is of gumballs! This concludes that the bottom picture is not taken with that camera at all. I’d even go as far to say that it was edited in photoshop with a filter!
Yes the above image and the below image are not the same photograph being taken. This is rather obvious.
BUT Mr. Wright there is one thing you overlooked. Examine the droplets on the bottom image. None of them are from the same angle. This is a natural occurance when looking through water droplets.
Is it not possible that the photographer took the second image first?
Would it not be more probable that when asked HOW it was taken he/she took the above image of their setup Using M&Ms, something much more common in a household rather than many gumballs, something they may have just bought for the original photo?
So to claim it was not taken with the same camera is indeed a long shot Mr. Wright.
Thank you for your time.
Really Edgeworth, is that you’re argument.
Aren’t you overlooking the fact that there are no pink M&Ms. This proves undeniably that these are not, in fact M&Ms, but some other kind of candy.
And one other thing, I find it highly improbable that not one piece of candy is facing so the M logo is on the candy.
So in conclusion, there is no way these are possibly M&Ms.
hey mister I think you’re confuuuuuuused. Edgeworth agreed that they weren’t M&M’s. He was just refuting that there is a possibility there wasnt any photoshop used and that the above image was only depicting the method used in the bottom image.
I think someone might be getting a little senile hehehe
Everyone seems to be walking around the accusations by examining whether they are or aren’t M&Ms. That is not what’s important. What we should be looking at is instead, the so-called droplets, compared to the background image.
The angles within the droplets do not realistically coincide with one another! As well, I don’t spend much time staring at drops of water, but I can surely say I’ve never seen such clarity in any water droplet. Also, as in the former picture, there is an obvious fogging on the glass, surely caused by whichever process was used to spray the water. Where is the fog?
On top of all that, the drops are amazingly tiny compared to the anonymous-candy. One could argue the sheet is further away than in the ‘example’ pic, but the blurring of the candies definitely objects to that. We could also try to assume that the spray method used in the ‘original’ photo caused much tinier water spots, but are we to believe that the photographer was so careless that they couldn’t recreate the correct droplet size in the ‘example’? Surely, they should have been able to cause at least a closer resemblance.
Sure seems like they went out of their way to showcase the methodology of how the photograph was taken, yet neglected to go far enough to ensure it could be a like-comparison?
Actually, Mr. Godot!!
Well, according to the properties of light and the way it’s refracted…
If you mirror it the right way, they line up just fine!
Aah… these M&M’s droplets
So colourful… reminds me of the days of my youth!
the red ones remind me of my hemorroids… *cough*
I have found some new evidence though the original image source suggesting this second image has been tampered with!
This image clearly shows candies that correspond to the colours commonly found in M & M s… The edge of the bowl is visible, as are some ‘M’ symbols, if you look closely.
This suggests the second image in the original is perhaps just a fabrication based off of the second.
It is clearly a fraud!
You shouldn’t jump the “fraud” gun just yet, Wright. If your source is really the corresponding photo to the first, then the “gumball” picture in question might not be at fault. To put it bluntly, it might just be a copycat.
To put it another way, this could just be a case of a mistaken and mismatched photoset..
With all the evidence provided, I think it’s safe to assume this case could be solved: The candies in the second photograph are not M&Ms, but the photo itself was not exactly tampered with. It was just a completely separate photo of separate candies, possibly just misplaced in this set by the original poster, who was completely unaware of the mismatch!
Hold it right there everyone.
A PUZZLE HIDDEN IN THAT BOWL OF MISLEADING CANDY.
I cannot, not reblog this. It is amazing!
OH. MY. FUCKING. GOD.
Say what you will, but this is by far the greatest post on tumblr.