

(Gif source: darkphannie)
".....so we can open the fridge."

Just did a quick wiki search on alcohol advertising in the US out of curiosity and it says this:uglyamerican wrote:Yea, and I wouldn't call the editing in the US version "censorship." It was likely a groupthink decision by a bunch of careerist mid-level publishing execs advised by overpaid/underworked lawyers about potential liability/backlash by church groups. It's all about the money (and having too many people involved in decisionmaking.)
Don't look at me, I was all for bukkaked on the kitchen (think of all the lurkers that would have googled the meaning?), but alas my dream is dead.alittledizzy wrote:smh at all of you not voting for 'a hot sexual mess' - I mean, that one would actually describe at least half the thread.
... pretty gifs, though.
That's all well and good, but what about the Starbucks nipples? I assume 70% of readers, no matter what age, have a set of those.apathy wrote:Just did a quick wiki search on alcohol advertising in the US out of curiosity and it says this:uglyamerican wrote:Yea, and I wouldn't call the editing in the US version "censorship." It was likely a groupthink decision by a bunch of careerist mid-level publishing execs advised by overpaid/underworked lawyers about potential liability/backlash by church groups. It's all about the money (and having too many people involved in decisionmaking.)
"Currently, the standard is that alcohol advertisements can only be placed in media where 70% of the audience is over the legal drinking age. Alcohol advertising's creative messages should not be designed to appeal to people under the age of 21..." blah blah etc. Not a law apparently, but self-regulatory so they don't get hit with actual laws.
DAPGO definitely doesn't hit the 70% mark. Even if it may not technically be advertising, it makes sense that the publishing company wouldn't risk it, there's way more to lose than gain. It sucks, but it's not worth it for them or anyone else.
I do realize that there's plenty of worse things both on their channels (and any casual stroll through tumblr), of course. Call it a case study in the disconnect between old media and new media maybe.
I didn't research nipple advertising, so I don't know what age you have to be to buy them.Winston wrote:That's all well and good, but what about the Starbucks nipples? I assume 70% of readers, no matter what age, have a set of those.

i don't live in canada nor did i know anything about the stonehenge pictured except for that it was in canada- but i remember reading that stupid commentary on it at stopping for a second. dan being the sjw he is im surprised they published that. even knowning nothing about the stonehenge, i knew it probably had to have an important meaning of some sort and idk i guess they were trying to be funny? but i didnt think it was funny it kinda just upset me and it mustve upset actual canadians a lot more- sorry canada )):Catallena wrote:So this isn't very cool :\
http://radioheaddan.tumblr.com/post/152 ... -important
Like they obviously didn't know, but why didn't they look it up before publishing the picture and their dumb commentary? Maybe it's just me but even seeing that without context would make it obvious to me that that is not some random stack of rocks. Did really nothing tick them off that maybe this was kind of an important thing to people?
I mean we all thought that too back in April and Dan managed to fly out to florida literally three days after phil left. Dan was spotted at the airport the day he left for America. So who knows, I wouldn't say phil going alone is out of the cards just yet, I guess we'll find out in the next few days or so.karma_yeah wrote:Like some other folks, I'm wondering if Dan is still in London, and I'm thinking he probably is. He was clear that "Phil was going to America", not "we" and Phil tweeted that he was there.
They usually run into fans at the airport, so I don't think they would go to all that effort, only to get caught traveling together. And Dan taking a different or slightly later flight would be equally sketchy, so I think Phil went alone.
I'm sure with the tour there are some last minute preparations to attend to.
We need a "I can't sleep" video from Dan

Hey Canadian here. Yes this is a type of inuksuk (called inunnguaq), a landmark traditionally made by the Inuit of Canada to resemble a human for hunting and navigation and has great cultural significance. For instance, the flag of Nunavut (a territory in Canada) has the inuksuk.tylerrjoseph wrote:i don't live in canada nor did i know anything about the stonehenge pictured except for that it was in canada- but i remember reading that stupid commentary on it at stopping for a second. dan being the sjw he is im surprised they published that. even knowning nothing about the stonehenge, i knew it probably had to have an important meaning of some sort and idk i guess they were trying to be funny? but i didnt think it was funny it kinda just upset me and it mustve upset actual canadians a lot more- sorry canada )):Catallena wrote:So this isn't very cool :\
http://radioheaddan.tumblr.com/post/152 ... -important
Like they obviously didn't know, but why didn't they look it up before publishing the picture and their dumb commentary? Maybe it's just me but even seeing that without context would make it obvious to me that that is not some random stack of rocks. Did really nothing tick them off that maybe this was kind of an important thing to people?

I s2g... turn my back for one fucking thread...alittledizzy wrote:smh at all of you not voting for 'a hot sexual mess' - I mean, that one would actually describe at least half the thread.

fancybum wrote:Ok so I just finished DAPGO and this is going to be... a lot. These are just some gross thoughts I've been having for a while now that basically exploded after getting through the book.
Definitely not cool. The first time I saw one of these (one of the small ones that people made long the highways etc) I was confused, but I didn't think it was a pile of rocks? Like how can you not at least check for a second if it has more meaning, and especially with the US/Canada and its difficult history with indigenous people, SOMEONE could've checked.Catallena wrote:So this isn't very cool :\
http://radioheaddan.tumblr.com/post/152 ... -important
Like they obviously didn't know, but why didn't they look it up before publishing the picture and their dumb commentary? Maybe it's just me but even seeing that without context would make it obvious to me that that is not some random stack of rocks. Did really nothing tick them off that maybe this was kind of an important thing to people?
"Underworked lawyers" in America OMG hahaha sorry this has nothing to do with DAPGO but it is hilariousuglyamerican wrote:Yea, and I wouldn't call the editing in the US version "censorship." It was likely a groupthink decision by a bunch of careerist mid-level publishing execs advised by overpaid/underworked lawyers about potential liability/backlash by church groups. It's all about the money (and having too many people involved in decisionmaking.)
This was a great read and something I totally agree with.fancybum wrote:Ok so I just finished DAPGO and this is going to be... a lot. These are just some gross thoughts I've been having for a while now that basically exploded after getting through the book.
incredible post fancybum i couldn't agree more. i am glowing.fancybum wrote:Ok so I just finished DAPGO and this is going to be... a lot. These are just some gross thoughts I've been having for a while now that basically exploded after getting through the book.
tldr: I loved DAPGO. Did you read this whole thing? Sort your life out.

Yeah, I don't think it's a huge deal either. There are lots of meaningful monuments in London and it doesn't bother me if people who don't know what they are make jokes about how they look. It's not like these people know the meaning behind the monument and are then still making the jokes about it; that would be pretty bad but not this imo.bantstrash wrote:Re the Canadian monument. Well they weren't wrong, it is like a canadian stonehenge. Stonehenge was/is a religious monument. It probably wasn't very respectful to say in the book it was creepy af but lots of religious monuments are creepy so I can understand them thinking it.
