Slashdot Mirror

It is indeed another legislative stunt orchestrated by Chris/Mark (he uses both) Sevier. He's been doing it (and other nonsense) for years. Keep in mind that this is just a bill. It has no chance of passing either house and even if passed would be summarily vetoed by the (D) Governor. It's just another big "HEY, LOOK AT ME!!!"

See, e.g., https://jezebel.com/man-with-b...

Just remember, the head of the Justice Department is Trump's new appointee Matthew Whittaker, who was a patent troll whose company was shut down for fraud and whose claim to fame was a toilet designed for guys with really big dicks and a time-traveling bitcoin-based commodity..

I did not make that up.

https://boingboing.net/2018/11...

https://theslot.jezebel.com/th...

So if you have a problem with Julian Assange being prosecuted, take it up with Hair Furor.

You couldn't be more wrong. Read this.

Ah, the distinction between the law and its application. Not only were Title IX investigations lacking in due process and not only were they also overwhelmingly used to target men and not women, but shit, look at the hypocrisy that flies when a woman is accused:
https://jezebel.com/what-are-w...

On top of that, you're telling me Amherst settled Doe vs Amherst because they felt they were in the right? Have you read page 18 of the lawsuit?
http://s3.documentcloud.org/do...

How the fuck was that a fair and balanced process? Shit, there are countless examples. E.g. one where two students were both drunk and had sex, but only the male was subjected to disciplinary proceedings:
https://www.armstrongteasdale....

I think that the changes offer substantially higher chances of actual justice: https://www.pandslaw.com/title...

Finally, we will have dogs that Mike Huckabee's son won't be able to torture to death.

https://www.newsweek.com/sons-...

https://jezebel.com/that-time-...

Bit of a blow to Apple's self image,

Not at all, it makes sense. VW are 4 out of the top 10 gay cars, with the VW Jetta in top place :-

https://roygbiv.jezebel.com/th...

Who else would dominate car sales to lesbians? It's a niche market, but one they own!

Dont forget M. Sanger who loved to control the black population through abortion. Their plan is working well since that race has the highest abortion rate. Hillary loves Sangers work. :-)

You mean the same Margaret Sanger who wasn't even alive when Planned Parenthood first performed abortions, and whose cause was birth control, which was considered to be unlawful and highly stigmatized, but who believed such methods would actually reduce the number of abortions, and who actually began her campaign among her own neighborhood before being invited by the leaders of the Harlem community to expand birth control services to their population?

You know, that's the problem with the right-wing, they get so caught up in their lies, they don't realize people can actually check the facts.

DNA as a 'mark of the beast' works until you discover chimeric people. Genetic mosacism is a problem for determining identity. Depending on what you sample you get different DNA.

As creepy it is to think of babies eating babies in the womb, this is very common for domestic cats. Among felines some types of coat are not suitable for show just because they indicate absorption of a litter mate. The task of pure-breeding cats for show is to breed them. So you need to predict what the kittens will be before you start stirring the genetic pool. That is already hard enough with the complexity of cat genetics.

You can't predict anything when your animal or person is effectively a Frankenstein's monster built by nature (or God, or whatever.) Even re-running the birth twice is likely to produce divergent results.

"You should realize that your congress critters work for rich people ...blah, blah, blah"

Standard tin-foil, knee-jerk response above.

Have you ever actually written to, or called your congressional reps? There are ways to be heard...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://theslot.jezebel.com/how...
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/...

> There's a man who rapes children and there's a woman who had people run a private mail server for her.

The rape thing is so ridiculous that even Jezebel doesn't buy it, let alone others. Suggested reading from people who are definitely not in favor of Trump:

http://jezebel.com/the-source-...
https://popehat.com/2016/10/31...

The "email server" thing goes way deeper than you realize. There have been far too many things in there for me to summarize. I suggest here as a starting place to look into this, but /r/wikileaks has been analyzing it continuously: http://www.mostdamagingwikilea...

The prosecution of this is weird as hell. Here's Congress trying to understand the FBI's initial lack of prosecution due to "lack of intent" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And finally, of all the child rapist claims, the one we're best able to substantiate is Bill Clinton's flights on the "Lolita Express" with a convicted pedophile (Epstein) without the Secret Service present. Now there's no proof of what he did and didn't do and a lot of people, including hundreds of famous people, were on that same flight with the same guy, including Trump on one occasion long before his pedophilia was publicly known. So it's kinda ironic that you're more worried about a sham lawsuit based on anonymous witnesses by an ex-Jerry Springer producer known for starting wild lawsuits that went nowhere who hates Trump.

There was also the Todd & Claire scam against Julian Assange recently as well and that's been pretty well proven to be utter BS. The whole site was fake, the UN "partnership" was nonsense (you just have to claim to agree to certain principles) and got revoked, the entire site was completely fake and made with ripped off, mirrored images (to avoid reverse image search--you can see backwards text in some) and all around sketchy as hell.

FWIW, I'm not terribly inclined to believe any of these, but if I had to put money on one panning out, I'd say there's some low chance of Clinton's trips with Epstein being real dirt. He has a lot of ties with them and the Clinton Foundation, though I haven't seen any clear evidence tying them to his pedo ways just yet. Yes, FBI Anon has been right in the past, but we should demand more proof before believing something like this about anyone.

We don't know much about that police investigation yet and there's a lot going on so I will say I haven't looked too deeply into that one yet. One concern is that we do have certain people on video saying they've been busing groups in for 50 years and how that works is that they get voter registrations with fake credentials and bus people around to vote in all the places they're registered.

That said, your source was interesting and you could very well be right.

There's so much going on it's hard to keep track. There are also a lot of pedophile claims going on. The Todd & Claire thing against Julian Assange has been pretty thoroughly busted. All the profiles are fake, the "UN partner" bit was a sham and the address goes back to place lots of corps are registered (though the phone # shows a potentially coincidental link). The one against Trump is so bad even Jezebel doesn't quite believe it. There's also one against BIll, regarding flights on a convicted pedophile's "Lolita Express", including 5 flights without SS protection, but it's a fair point that tons of famous people flew on that guy's plane. Why they'd do that knowing he was a famous pedo with a private sex island, though, I do not know. Trump also had connections to the guy and rode the same plane, but that was well before he was convicted of pedophilia and the claims he kept sex slaves came out.

Finally, there's one more knife in Bernie's back in the Podesta dump. Make of this what you will:

From:Joel@gpg.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2016-02-22 00:09
Subject: Friendly advice. No mercy.

Bernie needs to be ground to a pulp. We can't start believing our own primary bullshit. This is no time to run the general. Crush him as hard as you can. Other than that, hope all is well and congrats on Nevada!

Source

It definitively sucks to be judged by a collective based on your race and gender, rather than your individual merits and hardships.

Bigotry does not know limits based on gender. A female who decides all men are rapists is no different in principle that a Klan member who believes all blacks are inferior. All men have a rape switch http://jezebel.com/5279283/is-...

That's pretty offensive. But watch the feedback telling us that its somehow different.

I'm not sure why Disney is seen as a hated agent of the left by the crazy end of the right, but it's not about the Marvel movies.

Wait, I thought Disney was a hated enemy of the left. I'm confused. Won't someone please tell me what is acceptable and who I should hate?

So tell us great sage, who should we turn to for help against criminals,

You probably have no recourse. If someone breaks into your house, the police aren't even going to take fingerprints, if they even come out at all.
If you get death threats, the police will tell you they can't protect you. They have no legal obligation to do so.

This is a good example. I am not to blame for rapists. Rapists are to blame for rapists. I have no influence over the behaviour of people I don't know. I am not some asshole frat boy or rape apologist and I have zero influence over those who are. Those are the kind of people who used to bully me at school and equating me with them is incredibly insulting.

Here's another one. I'm not a murderer or a rapist. I don't harass women on the internet. I have no interest in Gamergate. But because I share the same genitalia with bad people it's my fault too.

Dismissal of male suicide. A small amount of men are rich and powerful so those of us who aren't and that suffer from mental illnesses don't deserve any sympathy. Four times as many men as women kill themselves every year but meh it's their fault for not embracing feminism and not a lot more complicated than that.

More white men have all the power. No I don't. I'm not even a manager, never mind a CEO.

There's plenty more bollocks like this about and this isn't the rantings of Twitter trolls but mainstream media journalists.

If your plan is to rebut me by trotting out some shit from the Daily Mail, then I'm not interested. Just because they're a bunch of tossers doesn't mean Jessica Valenti et al get a free pass to be sexist and racist towards people that have done nothing wrong and actually would rather be supporters and an allies. Telling us that our problems are irrelevant and that everything that's wrong in the world is our fault is a good way to get us to stick two fingers up and walk away.

If that's the worst you could find, you basically made my point for me.

By the way, science (and feminists) say I'm right and you're wrong.

A new survey out of UCLA found that female politicians with "stereotypical feminine facial features" are more likely to be Republicans than women with gender-ambiguous or masculine facial features. The more gender-atypical the woman, in fact, the more likely she is to vote Democrat. Simplistic? Sure. Gross? Yeah. But super fascinating.

http://jezebel.com/5950013/hot...

Funny enough, the theory of those pussy-whipped and feminazis is that conservative female politicians are prettier because the evil people of the GOP prevent ugly ones to rise in the party. So there we go. We have the gender-neutral cream of the liberal crop (which explains the uglies) versus the gender-role biased natural selection in GOP (which explains the hotties).

In a nutshell, you sir can keep your gender-atypical women, and I'll stick with those with stereotypical feminine facial features. To each his own!

Haven't heard about that one, but I have head a few.

a quick google search suggests that filing police reports about internet harassment is not very useful.

http://mic.com/articles/114964...
http://jezebel.com/the-cops-do...

Citation needed?

Yes sir.

http://jezebel.com/creepy-cath...

http://www.fixthefamily.com/bl...

http://www.timesofisrael.com/s...

Well, who says they use the pictures legally?

Otherwise, I would guess various stock photography sites, or even just paying people for pictures. If they paid people to write profiles they could also pay models for pictures. It's already known that Ashley Madison purchases pictures of models for advertising, they might as well do it for profiles also.

"It takes a village to raise an idiot" If you've frequently heard comments to that effect, then you've been in the presence of an SJW. They tend to view children as the responsibility and/or the property of the state. Child services around the nation seem to attract these kind of people. Whether a child services case worker happens to be a SJW or not, you seldom notice them - but when a SJW disagrees with a responsible parent or guardian, they have no qualms shouldering that responsible parent aside.

This bitch, for instance, who knew better than Mother OR her three children - http://jezebel.com/judge-who-j...

Who gives @#$*( if people start brewing narcotics at home.

The same people who take the time to airbrush and blur out a boob on a Picasso, that's who. The best part is this kind of person thinks it is doing the world a favor.

That the Big Education discriminates against Asians and Whites has long been very well known.

Citation needed.

I did offer a citation. Here it is again.

None of these links cite any studies.

Ah, so you did see them — you just didn't like them. Why, then, did you pretend, I have not offered anything? Could it be something personal?..

The first is the story of a girl who believes

What? Since when is one girl's account not enough to prove everything and destroy the reputations of all involved?

But, jesting aside, the 2011 article you dismiss as "one-girl story" says:

Studies show that Asian-Americans meet these colleges' admissions standards far out of proportion to their 6 percent representation in the U.S. population, and that they often need test scores hundreds of points higher than applicants from other ethnic groups to have an equal chance of admission. Critics say these numbers, along with the fact that some top colleges with race-blind admissions have double the Asian percentage of Ivy League schools, prove the existence of discrimination.

Seems rather convincing to me — which is why I cited it in the first place.

primarily to allow them to admit "legacy" students, who are children of other Harvard alumni

In that case, they wouldn't be favouring "underrepresented minorities" over Whites. The phenomena you describe may well exists, but it would not account for all of the observed discrimination. And, besides, I've encountered plenty of Asians among Harvard students even 20 years ago. Their children are now "children of alumni" too, which further reduces the effect, with which you try to explain the existing anti-Asian bias.

They simply must discriminate against the more successful races, because otherwise they will have disproportionately many Asians and too few Blacks. This would make them a target of various boycotts and governmental investigations by the assholes favoring equality of results over that of opportunity ...

There's been commentary from the paper's authors on this. Along the lines of "the peer reviewer did provide a detailed list of suggestions for how they could make it better". Hard to revise if the best advice is to able to run a mile as fast as a man.

Agreed, we don't know the quality of the research. It could have been shit. It could have just been bad science. But now the whole thing has been skewed by the ad hominem attack on the researchers themselves.

Just to correct my own comment, it wasn't discussion of religion in public schools. It was vouchers for religious schools - diverting public dollars to religious schools. They were SHOCKED to see the money going to Muslim schools.

I'd love to spend these mod points sending your bullshit DailyBeast link back down to the -1 Flamebait that it deserves, but this level of idiocy is worth calling out. That dirtbag Nungesser raped her and several others and the author of that article Cathy Young has built a career out out of rape-denial pieces - consistently manipulating details to fit her bullshit narrative.

Mods, if you have *any* interest in this story, there is plenty more detail to this story that you can read over here.

Please don't mod parent up, it's dishonest undeserving bullshit.

Signed with UID,
TheNinjaroach

You must be kidding, slashdot can not figure out links on it's own?
The two links from above reply:
Average height around the world
Average heel height in US

Why not just call him a "nigger"? I mean, it's what you really want to do, anyway, and it's much more efficient at "driving lefties into a rage" to boot. So don't be shy.

There's a reason doxxing is mainly associated with 4chan, 8chan and other pedophile websites.

Jezebel writer doxxes autistic kid.
Rebecca Watson promotes Doxxing.
Reddits ShitRedditSays subreddit digging up names of gamergaters.
A tumblr related website all about doxxing

Something about throwing stones in glass houses springs to mind here.

Actually it's about equality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/f... http://www.firstpost.com/india... http://www.hindustantimes.com/... http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/... http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/... http://www.weeklystandard.com/... http://douchebagdork.tumblr.co... http://www.ageofconsent.com/co... http://studentactivism.net/201... http://i.imgur.com/Vac0UOk.jpg http://i.imgur.com/aob5k.jpg http://www.law.fsu.edu/journal... http://www.genderratic.net/?ta... http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/d... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://www.theguardian.com/com... http://www.saveservices.org/pd... http://www.law.fsu.edu/journal... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://jezebel.com/294383/have... http://anescapedconviction.tum... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... http://news.nationalpost.com/2... https://imgur.com/zoR6eQ0 https://twitter.com/CodeusaSof... https://twitter.com/FabioFacch... https://twitter.com/DanielleGi... https://twitter.com/ForemanEri... http://theflounce.com/harassme...

That, or he had testicular cancer:

http://jezebel.com/5959232/pre...

If i go eat at a restaurant, I don't get to examine their entire cooking process, and i only have their word on what ingredient goes in. Sometimes shit happens, and sometimes there's lye in the iced tea http://kitchenette.jezebel.com... .

Now, if I get sick because a restaurant employee that's paid minimum wadge (if I'm lucky...it could just be an illegal who's getting screwed and thus doesn't care too much), well, there was a risk and I knew there was a risk. Nobody should expect to go to restaurants their entire life, especially small foodcourt places, and never get sick.

Now, if I DO get sick, and can pinpoint where it came from, I'm STILL GOING TO SUE THE FUCKING RESTAURANT TO OBLIVION (or at least, to the extent the law allows).

This is the same thing, except that the laws didn't evolve yet (because until recently, this wasn't a situation that deserved special cases).

Now even if you change the laws, you very well may never find the hacker. In the same way, a whole lot of rapists are never caught. But if you DO find the damn hacker, you sure as hell should have a case to toss the motherfucker in jail. And if you don't, you should be able to get the photos taken down, assuming you are in the jurisdiction of the hosting company (ie: don't sue Google, please...) In a lot of places, that last thing is NOT true. Even if you find the hacker, or can reach the hosts, its very possible no law applies to them. (at least no sex related ones).

One day society will evolve and sex won't be something that can make it harder to be employed, that won't get people embarrassed, etc, but right now, in many societies, it is the case. Until that change, the laws should be able to appropriately deal with it (ie: the recent issues in Mass where it was legal to take upskirt shots).

Thats the only problem here.

http://jezebel.com/unintended-...

A recent survey by the Guttmacher Institute outlines some sobering details about unintended pregnancy in the United States: as of now, a whopping 49 percent of the 6.7 million pregnancies per year in the United States are unintended.

So that's 3.3 million new consumers a year in the united states alone from recreational sex.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductiv...

Failure rates for birth control over 1% are common.

Combine birth control failure rate with anti-abortion beliefs for a generation or three and you end up with a larger share population against abortion than you started.

Which is not surprising, considering sites like Jezebel routinely use disparaging remarks against men in the headlines and content of their articles, like calling someone who wants equality for men a "jackass" and a "shitnugget." http://jezebel.com/jackass-sui...

I'm not saying that they are in any way responsible for people posting porn GIFs, or posting misogynistic comments. Two wrongs don't make a right. I *am* saying that Jezebel needs to take a very close look in the mirror and lead by example. No civil rights effort has ever succeeded by villainizing the other side, and equality should mean equality, not superiority or an attempt to collectively punish a group of people based on a few bad actors.

I'll admit that men have many advantages over women in America. We are not a minority -- we are, in fact, a majority, and thus can exert more political influence. Under 30, we are better educated, earn more, have more health benefits, options, and social programs. We live longer. We're excluded from compulsory military service. We are more likely to pass along our genes. We get courted by women who try to impress us, please us, and pamper us. If we're not impressed, we can obtain the genetic material of a more suitable mate for a nominal fee without having to deal with that whole "relationship" thing. We prevail in custody cases under a presumption that we're better parents. We are but 30% of the homeless population. We are sentenced more leniently for the same crimes, and more likely to receive warnings for speeding. When we make bad decisions, it's an accident -- everyone knows we have good intentions. We are almost never charged with sexual assault, let alone convicted, and we receive more support when we're the victims. We can use our sexuality to our advantage. Women are often our fiercest advocates, and protect us unfailingly against external threats. Women provide for us.

Imagine the outcry if any of that were true.

Okay.

Bingo. Given that Jezabel's female editors have posted stories about how they criminally commit domestic abuse, and invite their female audience to join in on the fun of laughing at each other's stories about the readers criminal domestic abuse, clearly the subject of abuse is not beneath them.

http://jezebel.com/294383/have...

Oh please, put your mangina back in your bloomers and explain this shit to me: http://jezebel.com/294383/have...

Muh soggy knees!

First, let me say that I was talking about workplace harassment. I failed to specify that in my comment.

When I say that the organization is the first responder, I don't mean they're the first, last, and only. People can always call the police (or file a lawsuit), and obviously if your organization covers for harassers then that's the next step. But escalating to the courts is expensive, time-consuming, embarrassing, often bad for your career, and nowhere near certain. Even in severe cases, the police often don't take rape seriously. It seems like the best we can do is have a multi-tiered system of shared responsibility.

http://www.juancole.com/2014/0...
http://www.politicususa.com/20...
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...
http://jezebel.com/5923898/rep...

"Trust me, nobody would go through all of that stuff (the reaction of people, the hormones, the discrimination, the cost, the upheaval to your life, the surgeries, people telling you you're going through a phase) unless they were REALLY certain that was what they needed."

Well... not nobody. Clearly there are just some emotionally confused and distressed people in that group who don't know what the heck they want. Let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt and say those are in a small minority but they certainly exist.

Good luck to your coworker. It's a tough world for people like that.

Sci-Am is not the platform to settle scores for private insults. Taking it there merely damages Sci-AM,
an innocent bystander.

The site in question was a Scientific American partner. They were not an "innocent bystander."

For what it's worth, Scientific American has apologized.
http://jezebel.com/sciam-apologizes-for-deleting-bloggers-post-on-being-c-1444576536

And, looking at the link in the original article, biology online is no longer listed as a partner site.
It's not here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/partners/
although it was there as of October 4: http://www.scientificamerican.com/partners/

He was just really into Ayn Rand:

http://jezebel.com/5490207/a-welcomed-rape-sex-and-ayn-rand

http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/atlas-shat-ayn-rands-manifesto-of-rape-and-terrorism/

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2012/08/23812/

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/10/internal-affairs-how-ayn-rand-followers-rationalize-welcomed-rape/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021259973

So please. Your oppressing him because of his philosophical belies.

Fucking libs !

I must say, she isn't the only one now.

http://jezebel.com/5453982/ingrid-newkirk-is-the-worst-person-in-the-world

But it's not rape rape, right?

But, if it is a case of ignorance of the listener ("niggardly" [etymonline.com] is not a racist term [jacobsen.no]), or someone helpfully trying to "decode" a "keyword" [dailykos.com] for us, or assuming because one party to some event was white and the other black that the event must have been racially motivated (e.g., the white cop who made a black congressman who had just broken into his own house show ID), there's a lot wrong with trying to permanently stain someone with the accusation. This would include the case of someone who, nine and a half years previously, while working with a Hollywood script writer to create dialog for a cop show, suggested that the bad cop being portrayed might use 'the N word'.

And how does that apply to someone posting something to Twitter or Facebook along the lines of "Fucking nigger won again"? That's a racist person, right? So what's wrong with calling that person a racist, even if that earns them a "permanent stigma"? Reminds me of the old joke.

Now, I haven't seen the tumblr stuff so I don't know if the person who was doing this limited himself to clear-cut unambiguous things, but I'm responding to your simple question "what's wrong with".

My simple question was in context. I wasn't talking about a Hollywood script writer, or some random cop, or an Oregon school principal. That should have been obvious. My simple question "what's wrong with calling a racist a racist" implies that the person is actually a racist.

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction would pretty much keep them in check.

Are you sure about that? Not life-or-death, but at least one official is prepared to terminate a school voucher program over this.

The voucher program, called Act 2, passed, opening the door for god knows how many non-Valarie Hodge's-religion schools that might interfere with her vision of America as a sort of Christian Saudi Arabia. At least one public school district has already filed suit in an attempt to keep the voucher program from being enacted.

People left England because of religious oppression.... Then you know what they did?
They set up their own theocratic territories which doubled down on the behaviors they had left England to escape.

People do this stuff all the time.

Black people were horribly oppressed in the US before the Civil War (slavery), and after it too (2nd class citizens until the Civil Rights laws were passed in the 1960s). Yet they're some of the biggest proponents of oppressing gay people; they were instrumental in pushing through Prop 8 in California, and prominent black people who've come out as gay say their biggest problems were with other black people. The Root has lots of articles about this:
http://thegrio.com/2012/02/07/don-lemon-being-black-and-gay-is-about-the-worst-thing-you-can-be-in-black-culture/
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/don-lemon-yes-black-community-homophobic
http://www.theroot.com/views/will-blacks-accept-gay-marriage
http://www.theroot.com/views/black-men-and-black-and-women-who-love-them

Similarly, Jews were horribly oppressed in Europe during WWII (death camps), yet many of them are just like the Taliban, spitting on 8-year-old girls who dare to "dress immodestly" and go to school:
http://jezebel.com/5871293/orthodox-israelis-spit-on-whorish-8+year+old-girl-for-going-to-school
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/middleeast/israeli-girl-at-center-of-tension-over-religious-extremism.html?pagewanted=all

You'd think that people who were previously the subject of horrible oppression (and not very long ago to boot, within many peoples' living memories or at least their parents') would be the first to stand up for the rights of others who are oppressed, but nope, that's not the way we humans work. With us humans, it's all "I got mine, so fuck you".

Utter BS. People marry here all the time, just like in the US and other countries. And imo, marriage is fantastic.

Marriage is in a permanent decline - and it's the women who are saying "No thanks, don't need the hassles. Mess around and you're outa here, sucka!"

This is exactly like what legislation in Australia tried to do when they banned nude models with A-cup breasts, saying it was promoting pedophilia[1]. Or how regulations around softcore magazines lead to photoshopping out protruding labia minora[2]. Both of these "conditions" are completely natural, and telling women that you can't show the goods if you have small breasts or a "messy vagina" is unforgivable. It lead Australian women to get unnecessary cosmetic surgery to match up to the government mandated acceptable appearance. While this might seem like the exact same thing that's happening without government involvement, women getting force fed an unattainable image of beauty, at least being skinny isn't illegal; which is what these researchers are proposing. So if don't want to let photoshop decide beauty, and you can't legislate a standard without infringing on the rights of others, maybe what we need is a little common sense. We all agree that many of these perfect images are a result of photoshopping, taking models who are human and elevating them to god-like proportions. Perhaps what we should be banning isn't who, but what. Regulate how photoshop can be used specifically on covers and advertising, make it a fine to make a size 4 a size 0. While it won't make anorexia go away, it will at least bring back some attainable standards of beauty. [1] http://boingboing.net/2010/01/28/australian-censor-bo.html [2] (nsfw, but in an educational way) http://jezebel.com/5535356/the-labiaplasty-you-never-knew-you-wanted-%5Bnsfw%5D