Internets, you make me sad sometimes
May. 6th, 2008 06:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hazliyaSo, through random browsings over the last few days, I have stumbled across the Encyclopedia Dramatica, a wiki for all things internet drama related. The existence of it does not surprise me in the least.
The articles, however unsurprising insofar as quality/tone and content, are what makes me stare at the screen like a baby seal that just got clubbed in the head. By the internet.
From this magical base of all things intarwebz, I was introduced to the following "what?" moments, among countless hundreds.
-![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
nonuglylesbians, a hot-or-not community for lesbians (no different from other hot-or-not communities in that there's no actual content other than applications, though I am mildly tempted to apply to nonuglygeeks)
- More macros than I have ever wanted to think about seeing. I'll stick with kitties and things that are more clever than crudely photoshopping in buckets and waiting for people to shower you with praise (for reference, a good bucket macro).
- Camwhore pictures, and the art form behind them.
The last one was what stuck out most as I went through some. Now, I've seen many trashy and grainy webcam shots. They're a staple of social networking sites. I'm sure I've taken a few myself when I first got a webcam (though I no longer use it, and upgraded to a decent camera and even a few photographers). But apparently, "camwhore" pictures can be taken with consumer-level cameras, as it's the angle and shot itself that defines it rather than the medium. Along this track came the concept apparently known as the Fat Girl Angle Shot.
This, other than the crassness of the page, was unsurprising. There are dozens of camera tricks to minimize areas you feel self-conscious about. It can be as simple as taking a picture of the left half of your face when there's a zit on the right, or as complex as shooting from a horizontal 45 and watching yourself in the mirror to take emphasis away from your bad haircut. For example, I dislike my nose and so avoid profile shots. I also dislike my thighs, so I mimic Contraposto or simply sit. Many, many techniques. This is completely normal. We tend to pick our favorite shots of ourselves when they don't focus on the areas we have trouble with. Reasonable, no?
What's unreasonable is the standards to which these morons hold the "fat cows," as they put it. I can't even begin to understand how that works. Look at this picture. One of the girls in it was described as a "total whale." I found it hard to figure out who they meant without the label. Can you?
And the word "fat" in itself grates on me. I mean, I'm not petitioning for the nutrition labels to start reading "grams from lipids/lipid-free!" or "adipose warnings" but there's an abrasive quality that the word's taken on. Yes, I do consider some people obese, but those people tend to fall outside of the hundred-pounds-from-healthy-weight bracket. According to BMI, I'm in the healthy bracket, even with muscle mass notwithstanding. But according to the people who wrote the wiki piece, I could benefit from losing another 25 pounds. (for reference, that would pretty much put me in the double digits.)
This isn't the typical pseudo-feminist "supermodels are unreasonable role models" rant so much as a "you guys deserve it when people call you buttfaces" gripe.
Off towtf_nature to saturate myself with things that make me say "What?!" in a good way, like this and this.
Internets. Blurgh.
-H
The articles, however unsurprising insofar as quality/tone and content, are what makes me stare at the screen like a baby seal that just got clubbed in the head. By the internet.
From this magical base of all things intarwebz, I was introduced to the following "what?" moments, among countless hundreds.
-
nonuglylesbians, a hot-or-not community for lesbians (no different from other hot-or-not communities in that there's no actual content other than applications, though I am mildly tempted to apply to nonuglygeeks)- More macros than I have ever wanted to think about seeing. I'll stick with kitties and things that are more clever than crudely photoshopping in buckets and waiting for people to shower you with praise (for reference, a good bucket macro).
- Camwhore pictures, and the art form behind them.
The last one was what stuck out most as I went through some. Now, I've seen many trashy and grainy webcam shots. They're a staple of social networking sites. I'm sure I've taken a few myself when I first got a webcam (though I no longer use it, and upgraded to a decent camera and even a few photographers). But apparently, "camwhore" pictures can be taken with consumer-level cameras, as it's the angle and shot itself that defines it rather than the medium. Along this track came the concept apparently known as the Fat Girl Angle Shot.
This, other than the crassness of the page, was unsurprising. There are dozens of camera tricks to minimize areas you feel self-conscious about. It can be as simple as taking a picture of the left half of your face when there's a zit on the right, or as complex as shooting from a horizontal 45 and watching yourself in the mirror to take emphasis away from your bad haircut. For example, I dislike my nose and so avoid profile shots. I also dislike my thighs, so I mimic Contraposto or simply sit. Many, many techniques. This is completely normal. We tend to pick our favorite shots of ourselves when they don't focus on the areas we have trouble with. Reasonable, no?
What's unreasonable is the standards to which these morons hold the "fat cows," as they put it. I can't even begin to understand how that works. Look at this picture. One of the girls in it was described as a "total whale." I found it hard to figure out who they meant without the label. Can you?
And the word "fat" in itself grates on me. I mean, I'm not petitioning for the nutrition labels to start reading "grams from lipids/lipid-free!" or "adipose warnings" but there's an abrasive quality that the word's taken on. Yes, I do consider some people obese, but those people tend to fall outside of the hundred-pounds-from-healthy-weight bracket. According to BMI, I'm in the healthy bracket, even with muscle mass notwithstanding. But according to the people who wrote the wiki piece, I could benefit from losing another 25 pounds. (for reference, that would pretty much put me in the double digits.)
This isn't the typical pseudo-feminist "supermodels are unreasonable role models" rant so much as a "you guys deserve it when people call you buttfaces" gripe.
Off to
wtf_nature to saturate myself with things that make me say "What?!" in a good way, like this and this.Internets. Blurgh.
-H
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 01:47 am (UTC)the encyclopedia dramatica is a chronicle of lolz and fail! fat whale falls under fail. :D
the encyclopedia dramatica is infallible! it is the only reliable moral compass offered by the web. except maybe the anonymous forum of 4chan.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 02:43 am (UTC)PEDOBEAR INVITES YOU TO THE PARTY VAN! :D Longcat is there. And he is very long.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 03:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 02:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 02:27 am (UTC)I also had never heard of this before, so apparently I'm living under a rock. =/
no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 02:29 am (UTC)Warning now: for your own sanity, never ever look up Zippocat. It will make you want to hate the world.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 02:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 02:45 am (UTC)Seriously though, read the articles on stuff like Japan and anime. You'll have a good laugh at your own expense. All of us weeaboo kids do. xD And if you don't know what weeaboo is, you'd better look that up too.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 03:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 12:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 11:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 01:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-07 02:18 pm (UTC)If you have large knockers, you're basically guaranteed to have a marginal BMI. Bastards. ;)
*hugs* Well, it's nice of the internet to confirm that water is wet and teenagers are shallow. I never heard of that wiki either, but I've been under the PhD rock for some time. O:)
no subject
Date: 2008-05-08 04:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 01:45 am (UTC)