Well FUCK. He sure is pretty though.
8 Likes
15 Likes
Among ourselves, it is a special distinction used to store extra mana of self righteousness to be used to boost our level in argumentative discourse at some later time. If we don’t give ourselves these awards, we think a bit about our behavior all the time instead of thinking that we have a hall pass. Then we figure things out from there and become well rounded peoples. Can’t have that.
11 Likes
11 Likes
Gee, Amnesty and WIRED; ya think?!?
Not that I knock Amnesty Intl for doing this study; it’s clear that Twitter won’t, because they don’t care.
17 Likes
“Sexy” logos are always risky outside of industries which are actually concerned with sex.
In this case, I think it’s notable the logo emphasises the cow’s rear, and not the udder (you know, where the dairy comes from). So instead the customer is presented with an association of what comes out of a cow’s rear end just as they are about to order a treat – not terribly appetising to most people.
The owners can hate on radical liberals all they want, but their logo sucked. They may also want to consider that the overlap between “radical liberals” and their customer base had enough overlap to sink the company.
I think the last bit from their landlord is notable too.
8 Likes
Yup. It was radical liberals, not the fact that these frat-bros were horrible business people. Surely.
9 Likes
Is that “horrible businesspeople” (i.e. people who are horrible at business)?
Or “horrible-business people” (i.e. people who run a horrible business)?
Or is “business” an additional qualifier in the description (i.e. horrible people who run a business)?
Or some combination of the three?
5 Likes
10 Likes
Horrible at business and at people.
7 Likes
In capitalist America, the rule of law is that some are above the law.
5 Likes
Yeah, that logo was bad.
6 Likes
The whole concept was bad. The logo just made it obvious.
6 Likes
I do not get the idea that this was a fun, family friendly concept, but I have seen plenty of businesses that sexualise women played that way so I probably wasn’t the target market.
6 Likes
“But Hooter’s is a family restaurant.”
Said to me by a co-worker who was happy her daughter had a job.
7 Likes
Hooters is definitely an artifact of an earlier time.
Not just because it objectifies women, or the very dated way that it does objectify women, but that it’s a sit down chain restaurant 
12 Likes
I will say I’ve never dined in one. The gang at work once got me into a Tilted Kilt as I was unaware of it’s schtick (and the promise of someone else picking up the tab dulled my suspicions)
It was as bad as I feared a Hooter’s or Twin Peaks or any of those other places may be.
6 Likes
I just saw this episode last week. I consider anything Michael Scott does an “opposite rule of thumb”.
6 Likes
I was more making a joke about the dying off of chain sit down restaurants.
Hooters is objectification, but the middle class Boomer flavor of objectification. I’m sure it would confuse millennials at least a little bit. They haven’t adapted much (or at all) since they were founded in the 80s.
I ate at one once when I lived in Ohio. The food was a bland imitation of food that already has a reputation for being bland. I didn’t really notice or care how the waitresses were dressed because the scantily clad thing has been done to death. This place has nothing to recommend it, but I suppose if someone dragged me along I’d eat there.
Never heard of it. But if I were ever to go there I’d say this:
I wonder if that ever gets old.
12 Likes