Metamorphosis tonight »« Skatje has been off marrying people!

Comments

  1. congenital cynic says

    I don’t get why anyone would care about anything she did. Famous for being famous. America has a strange relationship with celebs.

  2. davidnangle says

    One weird comment from the 80’s that you won’t recognize my sister-in-law made $5,721 in one month!

  3. ambassadorfromverdammt says

    Too tabloid!

    If your REALLY want to bring them in:

    10 Things About PZ Myers Sideboob That You Won’t Believe

  4. latsot says

    Aren’t *all* famous people famous for being famous? Isn’t that what “famous” means?

  5. Howard Bannister says

    I was wondering how long it would take before somebody who only read the headline and not even the first sentence of the the blog post commented.

    Looks closely at comment 1.

    Oh, my.

  6. epicure says

    So… what exactly is a ‘sideboob’? And why should it attract anybody, never mind TV viewers?

  7. Akira MacKenzie says

    The hipster asshole from Gawker personifies just about everything I’ve come to hate about modern society (besides the fundies). Facts don’t matter, no one is obligated to pay attention to them or accept them, and are only useful if it makes someone (namely him) a nice, fat, greasy, effort-free, profit. Of course, he’s just a symptom of the actual disease: the libertarian notion of “freedom.” When people are free to make a choice, you can be certain it will be the wrong choice for all the wrong reasons (e.g. greed, bigotry, superstision).

    If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times, “Fuck Freedom.”

  8. AlexanderZ says

    PZ,
    Can you please put Daily Show (and any Comedy Central) videos behind a “read more” button?
    They still have autoplay.

  9. Bryan Long says

    The thing is that it is not freedom when people are manipulated to fear and worship. People seem OK being manipulated by corporations only interested in money and power. But when anyone complains about harm or tries to disincentivize actions that harm, suddenly their freedoms are being attacked.

    People can blatantly lie about Obama all day and get TV contracts, but suggest a better way to treat a woman in an elevator and it is a “witch hunt – no exaggeration”.

  10. twas brillig (stevem) says

    re @13:
    Yes, same here. One of the first “autoplay”s that would not respond to clicking the “pause” icon on the video. I had to “block” it to get the video to stop. I know PZ was always p.o.d at “autoplay”. Maybe the new format will prevent this annoying “feature” from recurring. ;-|
    ——————————————————————————————————————————
    The editor of Gawker must know how inappropriate it is to teach headline writing, to journalists, from a site with a name such as “Gawker”. Doesn’t the title, itself, imply that the headlines will be nuthin but “clickbait”? Was that the satirical point The Daily Show was trying to make? I feel so sorry for Michigan, with only one paper news for the whole state.

  11. lorn says

    One one level I get it, people already know they are screwed, that things suck, that odds are nothing will ever change for the better. They have been sold story after story about how if they buy this, or do that everything will be better. They have been told that all they have to is: have confidence, work harder, believe in the lord, manipulate everyone around them, and give their time and work away to an employer in the hopes they will eventually notice and deign to pay them. None of it worked very well, or for very long. They have been sold strategies that mostly benefit the people selling strategies.

    If they aren’t unemployed they and see that they have a crappy, meaningless job with pay that hasn’t kept up with prices for thirty years. They see how their kids aren’t even going to do that well. They are numb and tired and what they really want are simple distractions. They don’t want the hateful and hopeless reality thrown in their faces one more time. They want an entertainment that will take their minds off reality for the few hours they have before they have to get up and do it all again.

    They want the excitement of seeing sexy people doing meaningless things. They want brainless people making fools of themselves because it makes the viewer fell superior. They want to see good looking rich people with train wrecks for lives because it makes them feel like their personal lives are orderly. They like rich and powerful people with deep flaws because it allows them to think other powerful people also have flaws. They want spectacle and distraction.

    And kittens and Kardashian side-boob are pretty good at keeping their minds off of their problems.

  12. Great American Satan says

    ^@16 something like that. I was thinking once upon a time about writing a comic reppin’ my fellow fast food employees called “Non-Voters.” It’s pretty hard to see any possibility of changing anything when the world in your face is all about doing your best to survive and emotionally escape, until some kind of hot score comes along no matter how sheisty it is. This ennui benefits conservatives and robber barons immensely, but I can’t blame the people who suffer from it.

  13. moarscienceplz says

    10 Weird things about Kim Kardashian’s sideboob that you won’t believe!

    FIFY

  14. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    eh, I think in this case “Amazing” fits the theme better than “Weird”, moarscienceplz.

  15. ironchew says

    @ Akira MacKenzie

    Of course, he’s just a symptom of the actual disease: the libertarian notion of “freedom.” When people are free to make a choice, you can be certain it will be the wrong choice for all the wrong reasons (e.g. greed, bigotry, superstision).

    If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times, “Fuck Freedom.”

    Don’t give into Libertarians redefining words for themselves. Freedom doesn’t mean the power to erase the rights of your contractual serfs, no matter how badly the Libertarian party wants it to be true.

  16. says

    Celebs are useful for having someone harmless to gossip about with relative strangers. Time was, if you lived in a village or a neighbourhood, all the people you knew knew most of the people you knew, so you could pretty easily find someone to talk about.. These days, when people commute to work over tens of miles from all directions — or even chat over distances of thousands of miles — we need well-known people to share opinions about.

    Explaining about your cousin Shirley’s circumstances to a relative stranger in order to establish the relevance of your opinion gets old fast. Far easier to have an opinion about whatever Kim of Cardassia has done now, not to mention less emotionally risky; if somebody disagrees with you over Kim, you’re going to care less than if they said something rude about cousin Shirley.

    And don’t ask why anyone should need to gossip — I know someone out there was thinking it — or I shall send you out to groom.cousin Nim’s fur.

  17. OldEd says

    This term “side boobs”: is this a reference to what we used to call “love handles”???

  18. Nemo says

    @latsot #5: No.

    Examples of things people are famous for:

    Acting in popular movies
    Singing popular songs
    Writing popular books
    Being successful politicians
    Being successful at business

    Things Kim K. Is famous for:

    ?

    At some point, it does tend to become circular — celebrities often get talked about more for their personal lives than their work, and are more “famous for being famous” than anything — but there’s a usually a clear starting point, a reason they got into that club in the first place. For a relatively few celebrities, like Kim K., that point is hard to locate.

    @OldEd #25: No. “Sideboob” is just when the side of a woman’s breast is uncovered, in a manner not typical with most women’s clothing styles. Specifically, the side facing out — like cleavage, but on the opposite side.

  19. Ariaflame, BSc, BF, PhD says

    Sometimes it’s good to be somewhere that is the wrong country for the video. No autoplay for me.

  20. says

    At some point, it does tend to become circular — celebrities often get talked about more for their personal lives than their work, and are more “famous for being famous” than anything — but there’s a usually a clear starting point, a reason they got into that club in the first place. For a relatively few celebrities, like Kim K., that point is hard to locate.

    That’s pretty much how I’ve heard it used.

    Celebrities of that type don’t do anything otherwise noteworthy, but for some reason, they’re considered noteworthy just by existing and being rich. One similar case is when a celebrity gets an acting or singing role because they’re famous, to attract adulating fans, no matter how terrible their performance is.

  21. Randide, "Fools admire everything in an author of reputation" says

    I feel so sorry for Michigan, with only one paper news for the whole state.

    That’s just for Ann Arbor itself, which is close enough to Detroit, and is still considered a part of the Detroit Metropolitan Area.

    Both the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News still print daily paper copies.

  22. AlexanderZ says

    twas brillig (stevem):

    Maybe the new format will prevent this annoying “feature” from recurring.

    It doesn’t.

  23. twas brillig (stevem) says

    Randide, “Fools admire everything in an author of reputation” says

    That’s just for Ann Arbor itself,

    oops. got me, you’re correct. I saw the 7:30pm repeat of the previous night’s 11pm show and caught the “Ann Arbor” stuff. Sorry. Sorry to post this superfluous reply – just playin around with the new “makeover”. ;-)

  24. twas brillig (stevem) says

    OldEd says @31 July 2014 at 8:47 pm

    This term “side boobs”: is this a reference to what we used to call “love handles”???

    ummmm, *clears throat*…. as I recall, love handles was for males; a little bit of extra flab on the sides of the abdomen, just about at the waist. [for the womenz to "hang on", donchaknow]
    Sideboob is for the sight of a womenz boob, when the side of it is not fully covered by the clothing (or revealed, purposely by the racy bikini top).
    Sooooo, love handles – male || sideboob – female
    AFAIK