It says your eyes and brain are seeing it as it appears / is presented in the photo, which is overexposed / washed out and taken under tungsten / warm light - but your brain is ignoring the surrounding context of the warm lighting in the room. Here it is corrected for exposure and color:
Then why did you click on yet another article about it that features a photo of it?
The image is overexposed / washed out, has a good amount of flare, and is taken under warm light. If the dress were white then it would have a yellow/orange tint to the "white" parts, not a blue tint. The "gold" color swatch (which actually appears as brown, not gold) is sampled from the brightest part of the black…
The photo is overexposed and contains a good amount of flare. Add to that the effect of digital "noise" that a camera sensor creates in such a situation and it appears brown. The "brown" parts of the dress are actually black in reality.
Again; YES I HAVE. It was part of the point. Reading comprehension, sweetie.
No, I never stated that you claimed that jezbel doesn't participate in this kind of thing. To the contrary - I pointed out that you don't even deny it. Remember that part? Reading comprehension, sweetie (you might look into what that actually means before accusing others of lacking in it). I said you are being…
Yes, jezebel does participate in that which it criticizes and purports to be opposed to. Look, sweetie - there is a difference between being varied and being hypocritical. Jezebel is hypocritical by way of its variation. That is the point that you keep missing.
I think you mean someone stole her dress.
Look, sweetie - jezebel does exactly what it speaks out against. It does exactly what this show does while purporting to be opposed to it, so is therefore part of the (overall) problem (of this type of attitude and behavior towards others). And you are on here (jezebel) criticizing a show for doing exactly what…
The point is that 1) jezebel is a fashion and celebrity gossip site by description, and engages in the activity you are criticizing and 2) doing so while purporting to exist for the opposite reason is hypocritical and pretty much negates the efforts put towards what they purport to do / be. In other words, speaking…
Look, sweetie - you contradicted yourself, and you criticized a show for doing one of the main things that this site exists to do (snark on people's hair and clothing choices - not to mention as well as their own personal life choices, speculate on their sexuality, sex lives, etc.). Just admit that your statement not…
It's not about whether or not you like the content. It's about the fact that this site is hypocritical in its intent. And how is being able to choose what you click on here , uh, different than being able to choose what you do or do not watch on TV? That argument was entirely stupid.
Not to mention, you just contradicted yourself (no surprise, coming from someone who defends jezebel's regular practice of doing the same); since people on that show also say nice and complimentary / supportive things (Like Kelly Osborne and Giuliana both did just before the remark in question), then - based on your…
So being hypocritical (in the same regard you complain about: disrespect for others and their personal choices and lives) is perfectly good? It's a good thing to point out that certain things are unacceptable, and then turn around and engage in those exact things?
I'm sorry, did I claim that this site never posts anything about women's rights, news, etc.? No, I did not. The point is that having a blog devoted to peoples' personal rights and the concept of respecting peoples' personal choices - as well as respect in general - that devotes countless articles to snarking on…
"Isn't the problem really that a TV show exists for no other reason than to snark on people (read: mostly women)'s hair and clothing choices?" - Funny that you write this on a gossip blog that regularly snarks on peoples' hair and clothing choices - not to mention speculating and snarking on peoples' own personal life…
Well, considering you embedded the video to start at the 46-second mark, where the woman is holding a phone to her ear - and the phone is the only thing that is in color (and then shows the words "Introducing the world's slimmest phone" 4 seconds later), then yes, I would assume it was an ad for a phone. It's pretty…
As I said above, "...suffer heart attacks as a result of wanting to avoid being called "hysterical"" would make the difference in clarifying the point.That is simply not how it reads.
The headline reads as if women choose to have heart attacks intentionally as the means to avoid being called "hysterical", not that they suffer heart attacks as a result of wanting to avoid being called "hysterical". There is a difference between those two things.
Ok, glad I was able to properly convey my concern / sticking point (or whatever). What you say here does make sense, but I think it does require a bit of "insider" knowledge - if that makes sense?
