The post funny stuff thread v.Aleph-naught

[Chino]

[King Puppies and the Acid Guppies]

[Harmony]

[pg1067]

Huh?

[Zydar]

I think it's a reference to this.

https://blabbermouth.net/news/baby-on-nirvanas-nevermind-cover-sues-band-for-child-pornography/

[pg1067]

I think it's a reference to this.

https://blabbermouth.net/news/baby-on-nirvanas-nevermind-cover-sues-band-for-child-pornography/

 

Now I have to read up on that....  Ugh.

[Nekov]

 

[XJDenton]

....is it bad that I only just realised that it was snow?

[Chino]

*snip*

....is it bad that I only just realised that it was snow?

Me too! I always saw it as sand. I feel like such an idiot 

[bosk1]

  I was going to say something along the lines of, "How could you possibly think that?"  But I guess if two really smart guys can think that, it's an actual thing. 

[XJDenton]

White sand, waves crashing in from the left. bucket and spade primes the brain for "sand", not "snow".

[Stadler]

I think it's a reference to this.

https://blabbermouth.net/news/baby-on-nirvanas-nevermind-cover-sues-band-for-child-pornography/

The implications of this are pretty broad.  Is ANY depiction of the genitalia of a child de facto "child porn"?  This is arguably not obscenity, but still.

And while I'm sensitive to a point, it's hard not to look at this as a cash grab.  I mean, if you saw this guy at a baseball game are you REALLY saying "huh, I saw his penis!"?   He should probably sue mom and dad for underselling his unit when they had the chance.

[Adami]

I think it's a reference to this.

https://blabbermouth.net/news/baby-on-nirvanas-nevermind-cover-sues-band-for-child-pornography/

The implications of this are pretty broad.  Is ANY depiction of the genitalia of a child de facto "child porn"?  This is arguably not obscenity, but still.

And while I'm sensitive to a point, it's hard not to look at this as a cash grab.  I mean, if you saw this guy at a baseball game are you REALLY saying "huh, I saw his penis!"?   He should probably sue mom and dad for underselling his unit when they had the chance.

Yea, this doesn't seem like a terribly smart law suit. The courts are not going to redefine child porn to include this. If he's hoping for a cash payout as a settlement, then he shouldn't have hinged this on a slam dunk win for the Nirvana camp.

[Orbert]

White sand, waves crashing in from the left. bucket and spade primes the brain for "sand", not "snow".

I thought it was white sand as well.  Then I noticed that the picture on the back was an older man in a winter coat sitting outside on what it clearly a very warm day.  Also, the back picture is very orange and warm-looking, so I realized that the front picture is very stark and cold-looking and that they're meant to be opposites.  I finally realized that the kid is playing in the snow using beach toys, that's a plowed road behind him, and the rose is growing up through the snow.  Details, details.

[pg1067]

*snip*

....is it bad that I only just realised that it was snow?

Me too! I always saw it as sand.

Ditto.  Although, to be completely honest, I never gave it a ton of thought.

I think it's a reference to this.

https://blabbermouth.net/news/baby-on-nirvanas-nevermind-cover-sues-band-for-child-pornography/

The implications of this are pretty broad.  Is ANY depiction of the genitalia of a child de facto "child porn"?  This is arguably not obscenity, but still.

And while I'm sensitive to a point, it's hard not to look at this as a cash grab.  I mean, if you saw this guy at a baseball game are you REALLY saying "huh, I saw his penis!"?   He should probably sue mom and dad for underselling his unit when they had the chance.

For starters, this guy is going to draw more attention to this by suing than previously existed.  Does anyone know (without googling) who was on the Virgin Killer cover?  Obviously, VK sold about 30 million fewer copies than Nevermind, but still....

I read the complaint, and it quotes the relevant federal statutes, and there's no way this meets the definition.

Also, this guy is 30 years old.  I assume the statute of limitations didn't start running until he reached the age of majority, but that happened over a decade ago.  I don't see how this isn't barred by the statute of limitations.

Also also, the fact that he regularly took and posted online pictures to recreate the album cover probably work against him quite a bit.

It's absolutely a cash grab, and I'll be interested to see which firm reps the defendants and what defense strategy is pursued.

[El Barto]

I think it's a reference to this.

https://blabbermouth.net/news/baby-on-nirvanas-nevermind-cover-sues-band-for-child-pornography/

The implications of this are pretty broad.  Is ANY depiction of the genitalia of a child de facto "child porn"?  This is arguably not obscenity, but still.

And while I'm sensitive to a point, it's hard not to look at this as a cash grab.  I mean, if you saw this guy at a baseball game are you REALLY saying "huh, I saw his penis!"?   He should probably sue mom and dad for underselling his unit when they had the chance.

Absolutely not. Lewd and lascivious are the relevant qualifiers. In fact, pictures of clothed children can constitute CP while most depictions of nudity will not.

That idiot's lawsuit is rediciulous on countless levels.

It's not CP.
It's not pornographic (Miller).
His beef is with his parents, not Nirivana or their associates.
If it causes him distress, QUIT TELLING EVERYBODY IT'S YOU, DUMBASS!

In the opening scene of Better Call Saul, Jimmy makes an impassioned, wonderful defense of 3 teenagers laying out his 'boys will be boys' strategy. Kids do stupid things, and this was just a youthful indiscretion, he says. The prosecutor never says a word. He just wheels out a TV on a cart, puts in a VHS tape, and shows the jury a video of the three knuckleheads sawing the head off of a corpse and fucking it. Res ipsa loquitur. In this case the defense will probably just produce the three different instances where this particular jackass recreated the album cover for profit. Real victims don't recreate their abuse for cash.

Also, unintentionally this numbskull just hammered home the artistic element of the cover. Now he's the wide-eyed kid chasing after the dollar both figuratively and literally.

[pg1067]

I started a thread about this lawsuit on the GMD section:  https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=56775.0

[King Postwhore]

[bosk1]

Not really the typical thing that gets posted here, but not sure where else it should go.  I was doing some research on a movie that one of the kids wanted to see (so I could judge whether it is appropriate for him).  The review site I was looking at cited to several uses of "scatological slang."    Not sure I've ever heard it referred to that way.  But that would make an awesome band name.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVMAKoSnnJY&ab_channel=HenricoCitizen

Took him some time but I think he knew 2 names in but since it's his job he just plowed on.

[Harmony]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVMAKoSnnJY&ab_channel=HenricoCitizen

Took him some time but I think he knew 2 names in but since it's his job he just plowed on.

Damn, I was just going to post this too!

I know it's juvenile AF but I was laughing pretty hard. 

[Lonk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVMAKoSnnJY&ab_channel=HenricoCitizen

Took him some time but I think he knew 2 names in but since it's his job he just plowed on.

Not sure if you watch/know about Impractical Jokers, but they have a few funny skids in the same veins as your video ( though the jokers are for tv comedy).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqlz---nLoA

[Stadler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVMAKoSnnJY&ab_channel=HenricoCitizen

Took him some time but I think he knew 2 names in but since it's his job he just plowed on.

Not sure if you watch/know about Impractical Jokers, but they have a few funny skids in the same veins as your video ( though the jokers are for tv comedy).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqlz---nLoA

I love the Impractical Jokers.  One of the few shows I can watch over and over again, and even though I know what's coming I still laugh.


In that video, I have to confess I cracked up at "Don Keydick.   Don.  Keydick."  I guess you never really lose the inner 12-year-old. 

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVMAKoSnnJY&ab_channel=HenricoCitizen

Took him some time but I think he knew 2 names in but since it's his job he just plowed on.

Damn, I was just going to post this too!

I know it's juvenile AF but I was laughing pretty hard. 

Yea I know but I still couldn't stop laughing.  The fact that the Henrico news site uploaded just that clip without description and context is also hilarious.

[El Barto]

I can't find the discussion anywhere, but recently this ethical question came up. As is often the case, kids tend to have the best ideas. 

[Chino]

  

I like this one:

[pg1067]

[cramx3]

  the ethic question

[pg1067]

[Ben_Jamin]

 

I like this one:

Well there we go fishbulb, I guess we got the answer. 

Just untie that person, and tie them with the others. Then say "Who was the dumbass that tied him up there?" 

[Kotowboy]

  I was going to say something along the lines of, "How could you possibly think that?"  But I guess if two really smart guys can think that, it's an actual thing. 

Along the lines in the sand snow ??

[Kotowboy]

White sand, waves crashing in from the left. bucket and spade primes the brain for "sand", not "snow".

That looks like a path made by a vehicle in the snow rather than waves ( to me )...

[Kotowboy]

I think about this a lot. Is there a name for the type of joke you know is offensive but the joke is that you obviously don't agree with it

and it's more like " haha imagine if I actually thought that..".

Like the joke " If there are 3 billion women in the world - you'd think it would be tidy by now..."

It's not saying " women should obviously do all the cleaning " - but it's more like " imagine if I actually thought that..."

It's a hard one to explain! It's the type of joke you say with friends who know you don't actually think like that.

[Stadler]

Probably rich coming from me, but I think you're overthinking it.   With the understanding that I get there is the implication of "stereotype" in there, there's nothing to "agree with", per se, because it's as much a reminder that the trope itself isn't real than it is a reliance on a stereotype. There isn't REALLY a Peter Parker/Spider-Man or Selina Kyle/Catwoman. The joke would be just as funny/relevant if you showed the man buying a box of tampons, and that's certainly not a stereotype, it's a fact of life.     

The only offensive thing about it is that they used a picture of Ann Hathaway over Julie Newmar.  Now THAT'S offensive.

[Adami]

There isn't REALLY a Peter Parker/Spider-Man or Selina Kyle/Catwoman.

Lies! Blasphemer!