i dont want a robot anymore after reading mikes thread. i want a forest nymph, who looks pretty much human so its not too weird when i bang her, but she has a nice grain on her soft wooden boobies, and her hair is a flowing mass of flowers, but her lady bits are normal and squishy. and she never poops or farts, and speaks in rhymes with a gentle whisper like the wind.

@Novum....that was my ex bf's fav car!

This is one of mine


This is my fav 'vintage'




My fav bike


And if SHTF...I wants me one of these bad asses!


They're all off my 'bucket list' as I have driven, riden or sat in each of the above....except the Mercury......."Sly...I knows you got that 'Awesome' car back boy!"


Jane

batou wrote:
What's a five seven, you foreigner?

Gilly wrote:
maybe a 57 chevy

Gilly wrote: I don't get it, how can a truck have character? Isn't that literally impossible?
Everyday we're the victims of suggestion and marketing, if Rick had said he wanted the Van for it's practical applications, quality reputation, functionality, he liked the look of it etc I wouldn't have said anything.
It's the fact he's Objectified ""bad assness"/masculinity/coolness", in the form of this van, in essence the van comes with an image or representation of an image dreamt up by a salesman which exists through implantation in the head of the individual buying it, i'm not having a go at Rick, but it's kind of like he's stumbled upon the holy grail of the modern oppressive status quo known as the society of the spectacle, it relates to commodity fetishism and other stuff i've been reading lately so it struck a chord.

Take a Valentines card for instance, totally worthless, useless, functionless, yet they are mass produced and sold by the millions every year along with various assorted valentines commodities, their use value exists not only in the minds of individuals adhering to the ideology of consumerism, but as a source of large profits for capitalists, they are an objectification of emotional dependency or some such attachment.
Agreed, but do we know what we want, are we in any fit state to determine what we want, what do we really want that we never obtain and what is the easily available commodity that acts as replacement

Baron Mandrake wrote: The reality is Mandrake you are worth way more than a fucking pick up van, if you want to be a badass just ask bats how or try a bit of trial and error, you strike me more as the suave sophisticated type anyway you don't need to get a pick up van on credit
You are a multifaceted, multidimensional manifestation of the most intricately developed ecosystem in our known material universe, you're the source of all gods and all idols, you're the mind of mankind, bad assery re-defined.


My work here is done

Mike wrote:
So, what car will I be driving in a socialist utopia?

What beer will I drink?

What ganj we got?

Where do I go for healthcare?

Do you like driving, I don't like driving, I like to experience travel, space, distance walked etc, I like to feel sweat, not sit in a bubble flying around on some rubber wheels with air conditioning, why are we always in such a rush to get places?

The idea of Utopia is itself a petit bourgeois counter revolutionary implantation, worse than heaven because it gives the idea of a hint of reality.

Mike wrote:
They stole your dreams too?

I dream real life as it used to be.
"it's ok, we told you what to dream" eerie song, but we're there now, we're even past raging against it with our Che Guevara tees, what is left?

Mike wrote:
So if you were in control of the whole shebang, how would the hospitals take care of anarchists?

Nurses, Doctors, Matrons and Patient committees would run the NHS.
you?

Mike wrote:
Sketts!!


Is Mike one of those A. N. Others?

Jane

Mike wrote:
Great post.

Mike wrote:
Right, so you corrected Rick on the meaning of objectifying, but have never heard of personifying?

I disagree with your assumption. I've never yet seen an advertisement for the vehicle in the OP - I'd make a point of not paying attention to such a thing, ads bore me . But absence of advertising didn't stop me looking at the picture and deciding of my own accord that it looks rugged and attractive - yet I wouldn't associate it with masculinity. Yes, I do agree that sales techniques can have a big influence. I just don't think it's the be all and end all - that people have no minds of their own beyond what advertisers tell them to covet.

The 'do we know what we want...etc' question - I think you're over-complicating things there. For myself, I want to be able to do things safely & practically, and enjoy physical comfort and stimulation (music, art). The fact is, no matter how some might like to view 'commodities' as a bad thing because they frown on the traps of 'consumerism', a great many commodities are necessary, and even wonderful things. So I'd buy a good quality toaster for eg, not because it fills a hole of yearning for something greater that I can never obtain in life, or because I associate it with an image of a glamorous lifestyle that I aspire to as conjured up by an advertising exec., but because I want to be able to make good toast regularly with consistent results. It's handsomely constructed and reliable, and has proven itself to be built to last, and therefore, it pleases me.

Gilly wrote:
I agree with that.

Vehicles are also a unique 'object' themselves in a way, as they also mean mobility for the owner, the ability to cover vast distances, perhaps see even more of nature than without one.

So some associate them with freedom also, whether consciously or subconsciously. So they differ to perhaps a piece of jewelery and so on in that respect.

Then there is the whole adrenalin thing which can be achieved with fast cars/going fast/pushing them around bends or racing them, which can have nothing to do with 'showing off' btw or anything like that. If it didnt feel good to some people then there wouldnt be so many people doing it, regardless of what is advertised, so i think it is both reasons. A real life example is when we look at the 'Fast and Furious' film franchise, it was reported that sales of nitrous oxide kits went through the roof after the first film in the series was released... while the film did feature use of nitrous and there was clearly blatant advertising by the aftermarket parts industry throughout the whole film, if the nitrous kits didnt give an adrenalin rush and pin people in their car seats like there were on an amusement ride, it wouldnt sell as well.



So i think with vehicles its much more complex than people being affected by advertising. While i dont disagree that advertising definitely sells cars and also gives people false impressions of cars too, it is not the only reason people buy them and use them.

It's all semantics at the end of the day.

For me...just to confuse the issue...'objectify' in this case implied...what do you like/dream about having material wise in your life, but actually wouldn't even buy even if you did have the money to do so

Jane

I took Rick's meaning as just an object that you adore - irrespective of ownership and not confined to vehicles. I don't know what your big, bold letters are about, Angel, because if he implied whether he'd buy it or not if he had the funds, I missed it.

Gilly wrote:
for clarity - i understood that incase u was wondering, i just added my 2c about vehicles specifically.

Gilly wrote:
I said....



Jane