This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Aether
Pages: 1 ... 515253 5455 ... 229
1561
« on: February 22, 2017, 04:08:22 PM »
WHO DID THIS
can't tell if male or female. .
1562
« on: February 22, 2017, 02:28:43 PM »
Wouldn't you expect to see misogyny in a story inspired by the middle/dark ages?
I'm not aware of any deep meaning GoT may try to convey as I've never watched it or read the books, but regardless, you have to be able to confront terrible things and entertain the idea of them if you want to grow intellectually.
1563
« on: February 22, 2017, 02:24:15 PM »
My vitamin D levels are severely deficient to the point that I couldn't replenish them if I spent the entirety of everyday in the sun. I supplement 5000-10000 UI a day instead, though I've been slacking lately.
1564
« on: February 20, 2017, 08:24:34 PM »
I believe the only absolute truth is the existence of the self or awareness.
All other truths are relative truths that can only be understood from some conditioned perspective.
1565
« on: February 20, 2017, 01:33:16 PM »
They're not all too familiar with it tbh. I don''t really play music around them ever.
I do have similar tastes to my dad, listening to prog, fusion, jazz, djent etc. but he also listens to more metal than I do and doesn't listen to electronic stuff or triphop like me.
1566
« on: February 18, 2017, 05:51:59 PM »
Deep South.
Lotta different southern accents.
Missing teeth hick speak sounds pretty bad but I think Cajun accents are appealing.
Which is the reason why I was saying deep South over southern
People in the deep south have Cajun accents though. .
Deep Southern =/= Cajun
The latter has a heavier French influence.
The bible belt consists of horrid hick speak, and expands down to the northern parts of Florida.
Never heard anyone use 'deep' south to describe an accent tbh, just plain southern or Cajun. Plenty of hicks around here in NC but the accent is referred to as basically just that, hick.
1567
« on: February 18, 2017, 05:19:35 PM »
inter-dimensional reptilian shape-shifting child molesters
1568
« on: February 18, 2017, 04:42:31 PM »
The legend, the myth, Peaceful Protest, AKA HeavenlySpiked, AKA NoNeckin.
1569
« on: February 18, 2017, 01:09:36 PM »
Deep South.
Lotta different southern accents.
Missing teeth hick speak sounds pretty bad but I think Cajun accents are appealing.
Which is the reason why I was saying deep South over southern
People in the deep south have Cajun accents though. .
1570
« on: February 18, 2017, 12:43:30 PM »
Deep South.
Lotta different southern accents. Missing teeth hick speak sounds pretty bad but I think Cajun accents are appealing.
1571
« on: February 18, 2017, 09:51:23 AM »
Two sides of the same racist coin?
1572
« on: February 17, 2017, 07:10:25 PM »
So the journalists are at fault for covering what amounts to a human/public interest story?
Frankly, I still don't see the big issue here, because it clearly isn't the loss of endorsements/affiliations.
Do you despise the reporters who covered the story? Do you despise how they reported it?
The issue people have is that these journalists when out of their way to cherry pick his distasteful jokes, take then out of context, make false claims about them, and then report him to Disney and Youtube, which has had a significant consequence.
Can I get a link to the article that started this? I hear it was the WSJ, but I can't find said piece. Forbes did a write up about it though, saying:
In this case, PewDiePie is clearly mad at the Wall Street Journal for lighting this tinderbox, but ultimately it was Disney and Google’s decision to end their relationships with him. I do not think WSJ set out to “assassinate” PewDiePie, and it’s normal to contact the subjects of a story with pertinent information to give them a chance to respond before publication, which is what they did with Disney. It is a story when the most popular YouTuber in the world, one with millions of young fans, uses anti-Semitic humor, however few examples there may be, regardless of the ultimate intent of the joke. WSJ pressed Disney on what their response was to these instances, and Disney deemed it appropriate to end their relationship with him as a result.
If anything, it seems as if PewDiePie should be raging against Disney and Google who are the corporations directly responsible for the decision-making regarding these deals, and did not stand by him as a partner. But those companies would be too dangerous for PewDiePie to take on, as it could continue to backfire on him (Google could wipe his channel entirely, in theory), while attacking the media instead is an easy target.
Based on this summary, I don't see where the supposed bias and bad journalism is coming from - hence why I'd like to see whatever this original story was.
I would imagine that both Disney and Youtube understood who they were affiliated with and what kind of content he created, but it's only now that this story has blown up so much that they've dropped him/canceled his series.
Yes and no - PDP was affliated with Maker Studios, which is owned by Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media - a smaller division within the Disney company. Again, without the original article that started this, I can't say who in the company was reach out to for comment. If it was someone outside of the DCPIM division, I wouldn't be surprised if they hardly knew the story.
Dropping him because of false or hyperbolic claims that are obvious libel, and are trying to capitalize on sensationalism. That to me is in no way responsible journalism.
...But the journalists didn't drop him? Like Forbes said, if he's angry at anyone, it should be the actual companies that cut ties with him.
I believe this is the original article that kicked things off publicly. You will have to subcribe to WSJ or make an account to read the full article unfortunately.
I'll give it a read once I'm able to.
From all accounts I've seen, the journalists catalyzed the process of Disney and YouTube severing ties with him by searching through his content to find the offending material, take it out of context, and send it to Disney and Youtube claiming him to be normalizing Nazism/fascism.
Mind showing me where journalist or the media did this? I'll give the WSJ article a read, but I've yet to see any indication they did anything outside of request comments from Disney about this one incident in particular.
From everything I've been hearing, it was the three that wrote the article I linked to you.
1573
« on: February 17, 2017, 05:59:40 PM »
who gives a fuck tbh
1574
« on: February 17, 2017, 05:56:40 PM »
You don't mean to imply that Sep7agon is unique in this regard, do you?
This is how the internet is.
1575
« on: February 17, 2017, 05:47:27 PM »
So the journalists are at fault for covering what amounts to a human/public interest story?
Frankly, I still don't see the big issue here, because it clearly isn't the loss of endorsements/affiliations.
Do you despise the reporters who covered the story? Do you despise how they reported it?
The issue people have is that these journalists when out of their way to cherry pick his distasteful jokes, take then out of context, make false claims about them, and then report him to Disney and Youtube, which has had a significant consequence.
Can I get a link to the article that started this? I hear it was the WSJ, but I can't find said piece. Forbes did a write up about it though, saying:
In this case, PewDiePie is clearly mad at the Wall Street Journal for lighting this tinderbox, but ultimately it was Disney and Google’s decision to end their relationships with him. I do not think WSJ set out to “assassinate” PewDiePie, and it’s normal to contact the subjects of a story with pertinent information to give them a chance to respond before publication, which is what they did with Disney. It is a story when the most popular YouTuber in the world, one with millions of young fans, uses anti-Semitic humor, however few examples there may be, regardless of the ultimate intent of the joke. WSJ pressed Disney on what their response was to these instances, and Disney deemed it appropriate to end their relationship with him as a result.
If anything, it seems as if PewDiePie should be raging against Disney and Google who are the corporations directly responsible for the decision-making regarding these deals, and did not stand by him as a partner. But those companies would be too dangerous for PewDiePie to take on, as it could continue to backfire on him (Google could wipe his channel entirely, in theory), while attacking the media instead is an easy target.
Based on this summary, I don't see where the supposed bias and bad journalism is coming from - hence why I'd like to see whatever this original story was.
I would imagine that both Disney and Youtube understood who they were affiliated with and what kind of content he created, but it's only now that this story has blown up so much that they've dropped him/canceled his series.
Yes and no - PDP was affliated with Maker Studios, which is owned by Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media - a smaller division within the Disney company. Again, without the original article that started this, I can't say who in the company was reach out to for comment. If it was someone outside of the DCPIM division, I wouldn't be surprised if they hardly knew the story.
Dropping him because of false or hyperbolic claims that are obvious libel, and are trying to capitalize on sensationalism. That to me is in no way responsible journalism.
...But the journalists didn't drop him? Like Forbes said, if he's angry at anyone, it should be the actual companies that cut ties with him.
I believe this is the original article that kicked things off publicly. You will have to subcribe to WSJ or make an account to read the full article unfortunately. From all accounts I've seen, the journalists catalyzed the process of Disney and YouTube severing ties with him by searching through his content to find the offending material, take it out of context, and send it to Disney and Youtube claiming him to be normalizing Nazism/fascism. There was no public outcry about his shock humor. No one was making a fuss until these three journalists decided that there should be a controversy surrounding this issue. There wasn't some phenomenon of outrage that they decided to cover, but rather, they created the phenomenon of outrage themselves, whether simply to slander him, to capitalize on sensationalism, or perhaps both. If what I've heard about the situation is true, I simply cannot see these actions as responsible journalism.
1576
« on: February 17, 2017, 03:53:54 PM »
So the journalists are at fault for covering what amounts to a human/public interest story?
Frankly, I still don't see the big issue here, because it clearly isn't the loss of endorsements/affiliations.
Do you despise the reporters who covered the story? Do you despise how they reported it?
The issue people have is that these journalists when out of their way to cherry pick his distasteful jokes, take then out of context, make false claims about them, and then report him to Disney and Youtube, which has had a significant consequence. I would imagine that both Disney and Youtube understood who they were affiliated with and what kind of content he created, but it's only now that this story has blown up so much that they've dropped him/canceled his series. Dropping him because of false or hyperbolic claims that are obvious libel, and are trying to capitalize on sensationalism. That to me is in no way responsible journalism.
1577
« on: February 17, 2017, 03:49:37 PM »
All I've said is that the joke was fucking stupid and his apology was hardly one at all.
I don't believe he should even have to apologize. It's his right to be offensive, and if someone doesn't like it then it's their right to be offended. It would be wise of him to understand the immense influence he has, but regardless, he should still be able to act as distasteful as he wants so long as he doesn't incite violence.
1578
« on: February 17, 2017, 10:55:04 AM »
lemonbong
1579
« on: February 17, 2017, 10:51:30 AM »
like for supra
share for charger
comment for skyline
1580
« on: February 17, 2017, 02:14:11 AM »
maybe none of that would have happened if he'd simply apologized instead of making a 12 minute rant and flipping off the journalists that just did their job covering his fuck-up?
I don't believe so, personally. From what I've seen, it's as though they have a vendetta against him. His Nazi jokes are offensive but it's obvious to anyone with a brain that they are not normalizing white supremacy or fascism, they're mocking it more than anything. For these journalists to sift through so many hours of his content, cherry pick out the Nazi or Hitler references, and then take them completely out of context, to me, alludes to some ulterior motive of slandering him rather than a genuine concern for the normalization of Nazism/Fascism. Unless these journalists are that deluded in thinking that his shock humor is actually going to normalize Nazism.
1581
« on: February 16, 2017, 07:17:28 PM »
they're slight, but they're errors nonetheless that go beyond natural imperfections.
youre not drawing natural faces though
Even though I'm not striving for perfect symmetry and am just correcting slight genuine anatomical errors? To be clear, I am distinguishing mistakes with anatomy from natural imperfections. I'm not trying to draw a perfectly symmetrical face.
Your attitude towards this technique is really disheartening. You're the first person I've ever seen to be against using it.
hey do whatever you want im just saying
I will, of course. It's just that, as skilled artist, I value your opinion and if you're going to see my face sketches as not being natural because I flip them, when I still strive to achieve a natural look, then it's disheartening.
i thought you were going for a semi-cartoony face not a realistic one
Yeah I want to do stylized work, but I want to approach it from a good knowledge of fundamentals.
1582
« on: February 16, 2017, 06:08:43 PM »
they're slight, but they're errors nonetheless that go beyond natural imperfections.
youre not drawing natural faces though
Even though I'm not striving for perfect symmetry and am just correcting slight genuine anatomical errors? To be clear, I am distinguishing mistakes with anatomy from natural imperfections. I'm not trying to draw a perfectly symmetrical face.
Your attitude towards this technique is really disheartening. You're the first person I've ever seen to be against using it.
hey do whatever you want im just saying
I will, of course. It's just that, as a skilled artist, I value your opinion and if you're going to see my face sketches as not being natural because I flip them, when I still strive to achieve a natural look, then it's disheartening.
1583
« on: February 16, 2017, 04:59:01 PM »
they're slight, but they're errors nonetheless that go beyond natural imperfections.
youre not drawing natural faces though
Even though I'm not striving for perfect symmetry and am just correcting slight genuine anatomical errors? To be clear, I am distinguishing mistakes with anatomy from natural imperfections. I'm not trying to draw a perfectly symmetrical face. Your attitude towards this technique is really disheartening. You're the first person I've ever seen to be against using it.
1584
« on: February 16, 2017, 04:30:05 PM »
Sketched the last one I did in photoshop to refine the proportions. Being able to flip the image really exposed all the mistakes. It's nuts how you can suddenly see them so well after doing it. Painting is difficult as hell though. I really need to gain more experience with it.
dont bother flipping if you cant see it just by looking at it
its the same effect as if you look in the mirror vs a picture on your phone unless your face is perfect or something
unless your picture must be absolutely symmetrical like if you were drawing a metropolis poster or something
Nah it's not just like seeing your face in the mirror vs a photo. It really does bring genuine mistakes in the proportions to your attention. With that sketch, I didn't realize how skewed the angles of the jawline were until I reversed it, and it helped me correct real anatomical errors.
people are born with skewed jaws all the time
mine is very slightly to the left
if you were drawing the face from an angle which is where i see most of your mistakes tbh
again if you cant see the mistakes without a mirror theyre probably not worth fixing, people arent going to be dissecting your art by playing with a mirror just to point out your mistakes, because its likely they wont see it either; i dont really call them mistakes, if theyre not bad enough for you to spot them at a glance and it still looks natural, then it is what it is
Nah I'm talking about real anatomical errors, not the natural imperfections of the face. I'm telling you, there's a real phenomena of not being able to fully see genuine errors with proportion and anatomy when first sketching the face. They're not major errors, they're slight, but they're errors nonetheless that go beyond natural imperfections. They're certainly thing I would want to refine after noticing them. I could tell something was off the about the sketch when looking at it and wasn't satisfied with it, but I couldn't exactly pinpoint what it was until flipping the image. After reversing the image and refining the sketch, I'm significantly more satisfied with how it looks now. You can see it's not perfectly symmetrical, and I wasn't aiming for that at all, but it looks significantly better to me after doing it. I get what you're trying to say, and I agree that you shouldn't strive for perfect symmetry with the face, but I've seen so many great artists use this technique and benefit from it, so I just don't see why I shouldn't use it as well, especially since it seems to be benefiting me as well.
1585
« on: February 16, 2017, 11:31:49 AM »
Sketched the last one I did in photoshop to refine the proportions. Being able to flip the image really exposed all the mistakes. It's nuts how you can suddenly see them so well after doing it. Painting is difficult as hell though. I really need to gain more experience with it.
dont bother flipping if you cant see it just by looking at it
its the same effect as if you look in the mirror vs a picture on your phone unless your face is perfect or something
unless your picture must be absolutely symmetrical like if you were drawing a metropolis poster or something
Nah it's not just like seeing your face in the mirror vs a photo. It really does bring genuine mistakes in the proportions to your attention. With that sketch, I didn't realize how skewed the angles of the jawline were until I reversed it, and it helped me correct real anatomical errors. I've seen many artists do it for a long time now but never realized how effective it is until I tried it. Also, I'm using Photoshop because I want to get into painting digitally. Sketching things mostly on paper, scanning them in, and painting the sketch in PS.
1586
« on: February 16, 2017, 09:47:14 AM »
Sketched the last one I did in photoshop to refine the proportions. Being able to flip the image really exposed all the mistakes. It's nuts how you can suddenly see them so well after doing it. Painting is difficult as hell though. I really need to gain more experience with it.
tbh the default brushes in Photoshop are pretty shit, I can send you the brush packs I use if you want.
Sure, but I'm not using default brushes. I just haven't found the right ones for painting the face among the dozens I've downloaded.
1587
« on: February 15, 2017, 11:12:59 PM »
Sketched the last one I did in photoshop to refine the proportions. Being able to flip the image really exposed all the mistakes. It's nuts how you can suddenly see them so well after doing it. Painting is difficult as hell though. I really need to gain more experience with it.
1588
« on: February 15, 2017, 10:57:59 PM »
you're a fuckin ganderneck
1589
« on: February 15, 2017, 05:38:37 PM »
Responsible implies that you're irresponsible if you don't drink it.
I can't take that response seriously.
1590
« on: February 15, 2017, 04:39:34 PM »
Wait what is the reasoning behind this? It's not psychoactive, and it's not harmful. Where is the logic?
Caffeine is extremely harmful and addictive.
Okay so you condemn the abuse of caffeine, but your post makes it sound like you condemn the responsible use of caffeine. Do you deny that the responsible use of caffeine exists?
Pages: 1 ... 515253 5455 ... 229
|
Show Posts