[throwaway45067]

This website is beyond off-putting. I realize this was written 20 years ago, so I'm willing to forgive what, if written today, would essentially be adding cheap punches to a person who fought widespread mental abuse for over a decade. But apart from that, why is there a "booble" search in the corner, and why are there charts following the cleavage line of (a quite possibly underage) Britney Spears?

[WnZ39p0Dgydaz1]

I love this comment. It demonstrates nicely how the web and (mostly American, I think other nationalities react differently) culture has changed over the past 20 years.

20 years ago this was simply funny. Nobody took it seriously. It even got an "awards" page.

These days, nobody would ever want to be associated with such a site out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever.

Not here to judge right or wrong, I think it's somewhere in the middle, but it's an interesting observation.

[jahnu]

I wouldn't want to be associated with such things not because I'm afraid of being lynched but because I've learned that it's demeaning to people. Pitchforks and pile are the excesses of a generally good movement to excise mean spirited or just unintentionally demeaning stuff from our culture but growing and learning to respect others is not a bad impulse. So I wouldn't pile on the author of this site but definitely will not be sharing it amongst my peers.

[captainredbeard]

> Pitchforks and pile are the excesses of a generally good movement to excise mean spirited or just unintentionally demeaning stuff from our culture

...just gonna point out this isn’t a universally accepted notion. Were the Salem Witch Trials governed by this “righteous” fury?

[jahnu]

Totally fair.

[maxehmookau]

No, this isn't correct IMO. 20 years ago, this was funny to the small group of young men who would've been aware of it. "Locker-room talk" if you will. This was never "simply funny" to a lot of people, they just weren't empowered to say or do anything about it. Thankfully, things are changing.

Web technology isn't just the reserve of "geeks" making websites in their basements anymore. It fills every corner of our existance. It's no longer in the locker room and it should behave as such.

[LocalH]

There should honestly be room for both. I bemoan the modern sanitization of every single corner of the internet. Remember what they used to say about TV? "If you don't like it, don't watch it". If you don't like it, don't view the site.

People should be empowered to say something about things. But in the vast majority of situation where no actual law is being violated, they really shouldn't be empowered to do anything about it. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Why are so many people today willing to throw freedom of speech out the window?

[nkrisc]

You're free to engage in as much "locker-room" talk as you like. But I think more people are raising is simply in bad taste and often just cruel. Yeah, it's just speech and no one is harmed by it, but myself and are choosing we don't want to partake in it or give it the time of day. So go ahead, do it, but if I hear you doing it I'm going to think a lot less of you as a result. Your speech is free, just not free of consequences.

It's just unkind and there's not really any reason for it.

[dkersten]

There's a difference between calling someone out for something untasteful and actively trying to ruin their careers, marriages and lives over it.

[maxehmookau]

Strangers on the internet can't ruin marriages and careers alone. They can, however, shine light on things that might end a marriage, or a career.

My wife wouldn't divorce me if a random stranger on the internet accused me of something terrible. If I did do something terrible, then she might want to divorce me.

My employer wouldn't dismiss me if a random stranger accused me of something terrible. If I did do something terrible, then they might no longer want to be associated with me.

That seems entirely reasonable.

[truculent]

> People should be empowered to say something about things. But in the vast majority of situation where no actual law is being violated

That's exactly what's happening in this thread. People are discussing this website, sharing criticisms ("saying things" as you put it). Nobody is advocating for legal action, nobody is suppressing the author's speech.

> If you don't like it, don't view the site.

Sure! But someone posted it here for viewing and discussion. Should the comments only be for sympathetic discussion? What about freedom of speech!

[LocalH]

I was specifically responding to the part of the post where they referenced doing something about it:

>This was never "simply funny" to a lot of people, they just weren't empowered to say or do anything about it. Thankfully, things are changing.

[maxehmookau]

> I bemoan the modern sanitization of every single corner of the internet.

There's plenty of corners of the internet that are anything but sanitized and will resist any form of sanitization. It's occupiers will probably choose that particular hill to die on too. 4chan would be a good (if you can use that word...) example.

> Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Why are so many people today willing to throw freedom of speech out the window?

Freedom of speech still exists. Case-in-point, the website in question still exists no matter how uncomfortable it makes me personally. Freedom of speech does not protect anybody from the consequences of that freedom.

People are much less tolerant of speech that offends them. I think this is a good thing, because many minorities were already often offended before but lacked the power to speak up. What you're seeing now isn't the erosion of freedom of speech, but the strengthening of it in the face of robust and diverse views.

[JKCalhoun]

Agree, but perhaps OP is bemoaning that some of the more tame stuff (like the Britney Spears bit) is being vilified. I mean, when you talk about "corners of the internet that are anything but sanitized" we all know how low and demeaning that can be.

I worry that this trend is polarizing — forcing us to two extremes.

[rsynnott]

... Wait, no-one's suggesting banning this, just saying that it is bad. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[criddell]

I never thought of it I before but I think you’re right. The demographics of internet users has broadened a great deal since then.

[MrGilbert]

> No, this isn't correct IMO.

Kindly disagree. Compare the old Simpsons seasons with the more modern ones. There is a change in tone in general.

But, apart from that, the "dark web" is currently filling this niche, so... Whatever floats your boat is fine.

[maxehmookau]

> Kindly disagree. Compare the old Simpsons seasons with the more modern ones. There is a change in tone in general.

Sure, I agree. FRIENDS is also an example of a pop culture icon which has aged _really_ badly since the 90s. But consider how the demographic make-up of those writers rooms will have changed in the last 20 years too.

[ericb]

Can you give examples of what aged really badly in friends? I don't remember it well enough.

[maxehmookau]

The behaviour of Ross and Joey was pretty gross and would be looked on pretty badly these days.

Here's a good list: https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1209195-Ways-the-...

Here's a buzzfeed list (if you're in the mood for gifs): https://www.buzzfeed.com/caseyrackham/moments-that-prove-ros...

[exclusiv]

> It's no longer in the locker room and it should behave as such.

This website is not locker room talk by ANY means. The creator most likely had the hots for her, wanted to try and make boring nerd stuff more interesting & memorable and get more views. So what?

This is the online, PhD geek version of putting up a Britney Spears pinup. It's a fan/niche site, not the homepage of a major site. The audience is not kids; it's nerds.

She's a public celebrity who leveraged her looks to stardom. And a lot of people had the hots for her. So this guy used the shape of her body to explain conduction bands and valence bands and it's a problem? And an example of the cross that geeks need to bear in saving the internet with web technology?

Your opinion and ideal is not possible unless you censor content and user interactions.

And besides, the web got nasty once the general populace was added.

You can just look at your average friend and family argument on Facebook to see that.

[kube-system]

I think this is accurate. 20 years ago, 5% of the world used the internet, 50% of Americans used the internet and 1% of Americans had broadband.

[mickof]

> out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever

People like to claim this all the time, with very little evidence of it actually happening. Also the web is full of sexist shit, even 20 years later. I really don't see the point you are making.

In reality you are WAY more likely to get fired for union organizing or for being the victim of sexual harassment, rather than for being an edge lord on the internet.

[teekert]

It is isn't it? I've been watching StarTrek The Original Series lately and oh boy, have we changed. There is a Netflix Explained episode on Political Correctness, fascinating stuff.

To be clear, in my opinion we definitely changed for the better, the position of women at the end of the 60's (which seems so close) is almost mind boggling to me now. It's just 2 generations away from me, but back then my grandmother's mother told my grandmother: "You want to work? What? I'll teach you how to work, in the kitchen, and around the house." I think this caused my grandmother to be very liberal with her kids and as a result my mother was with me and my brothers. As a result I never understood how one can not see men and women as equal. TOS gives some "nice" insights into the matter though...

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> To be clear, in my opinion we definitely changed for the better

I'd say most things changed for the better. But I'd be a hypocrite if I said there are no dark aspects. There are organized thugs on the Internet who will do everything to make your life miserable at the slighest hint of you not conforming to the current view on $SUBJECT. What's equally bad, it doesn't really matter if you actually did what you are accused of, it's enough that someone says so. As a consequence, many people just prefer to keep silent, including the ones who have the most meaningful things to say.

[p_l]

TOS is particularly interesting given how it made a noticeable push for equality and so on, a push that is much harder to notice due to different mores today and lacking context (for example, mini skirts used to be sign of women liberation, and IIRC there's at least one TOS episode with male crewman in a mini!)

[moron4hire]

The male mini skirt is in TNG.

[p_l]

Thank you for correction. Wasn't it per chance in one of the earlier episodes? I haven't watched TNG or TOS in ages and they were kind of watched at nearly the same time :)

[moron4hire]

Yeah, doesn't show up again after the first season. Might even be only in the first episode of first season of TNG.

[kristopolous]

The jokes fall flat because it's no longer taboo, it feels derivative even if it was original, and the context is gone.

This is why Bob Hope is lame to us. He may have popularized the "tight 5" standup format but everyone copied him and many do it better.

This is also why Amos & Andy is just a fairly uninteresting half hour of blackface racism or why Mr Yunioshi in breakfast at tiffany's just looks stupid now. Sure these are racist but when you look past that, they're also not funny any more.

They're pointing at some, bringing focus to it, but it has no more symbolic resonance.

It's also why if someone made say mrs doubtfire today it'd look like an outdated flop.

There's a societal context that gave these things a dynamic which no longer exists.

It's actually the same reason Monica lewinsky and draft card jokes wouldn't work today. There's no longer a supportive scaffolding to give it the context.

Race and sex based comedy can still be done, it just needs to live in the 2021 context.

It's still racist and sexist, which are both morally objectionable, but unlike this site, it could probably still also be funny.

For instance, you could do a black Mr. Magoo who gets treated with constant dangerous racial prejudice but in the magoo character, always assumes good intentions and miraculously survives everything. Runs into klansman, thinks it's a costume party, etc..

You might also be able to pull off the 3s company dynamic (in the original, straight guy needed to convince everyone he was gay so the premise was "straight man in the closet") but using a different spectrum that's more relevant to today's conflicts.

[throwaway45067]

The other reply already said what needed to be said. I too genuinely find the site distasteful and am not just virtue-signaling for social status.

I would just like to add that I'm, in fact, not American (nor Western European) and that we dislike low-key misogyny in other parts of the world too.

[truculent]

I think this comment says more about you than about the website, to be frank.

The distribution of people and cultures represented on the internet may have changed, but I think plenty of people would have seen this as objectionable at the time, even if you weren't as aware of them as you are now.

> These days, nobody would ever want to be associated with such a site out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever.

Would the fact that the website is still up, _with_ a "contact me" link, undermine your point somewhat?

[michaelt]

> These days, nobody would ever want to be associated with such a site out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever.

To an extent - but 20 years ago was also pre-Facebook when use of psudeonyms was widely accepted internet safety advice.

[api]

It's mirrored an overall change in the culture. The left has become much more critical and sensitive, while the right has entered Satanic Panic 2.0 and decided that anything remotely edgy is evidence of Satanic baby eating and sees pedophilia absolutely everywhere.

20-30 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to make incredibly lewd or offensive jokes or have your band LARP as Satanists. The culture was far more tolerant of coarseness and taboo-breaking.

Here's an example that would drive the present-day left and right bonkers if it was released today:

https://www.metrolyrics.com/my-sharona-lyrics-the-knack.html

[rsynnott]

> These days, nobody would ever want to be associated with such a site out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever.

Or, er, maybe they wouldn't want to be associated with it out of other motivations, such as common decency?

[alimw]

I'm confused. If it is the photos that you consider indecent, surely you should be taking issue with the publicity machine that produced them? As far as I can see, this website has done little more than add a spurious connection to semiconductor physics.

[afavour]

Why can't you take issue with both?

[alimw]

Both of what? Both the publicity machine for producing the photos and the website for republishing them? Or both the photos themselves and the spurious connection to semiconductor physics?

[krapp]

>These days, nobody would ever want to be associated with such a site out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever.

Is it really because "nobody would ever want to be associated with such a site out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever" or because the web has matured beyond its "shitposting teenage edgelord" phase and many people now legitimately don't find that sort of thing funny?

[leetcrew]

is it that different than the scene in the big short where margot robbie explains subprime loans (presumably) naked in a bathtub? that was in 2015.

I guess margot robbie consented to that depiction at least, but the punchline is essentially the same.

[deepstack]

Hmm sounds like a bit too PC now days.

[nsajko]

I think you're turning a blind eye towards the more than strong association of Spears' public image and marketing with her sexual appeal. I suspect that the way she was marketed as an idol was actually influential in the business.

For instance, those photos of Spears were surely released on her behalf, to boost her career.

Sex sells: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_in_advertising

[truculent]

There are ways to engage with sexuality which aren't demeaning or dismissive. Personally, I would not say that "Booble" qualifies in this respect. YMMV

[nsajko]

Could you be more explicit?

"Booble" and the other stuff seems like just harmless fun to me. I'm not saying it's particularly funny, but I don't see how is it demeaning or dismissive.

Is joking about this off-limits because Spears is female? If there was a fan-site dedicated to, e.g., a male bodybuilder; with similar attention given to his biceps muscles as is given to Spears' breasts here; would you think of it as demeaning or dismissive?

[nsajko]

Another possibly interesting comparison would be with Black Sabbath. That band is responsible for a lot of groundbreaking and beautiful music, but they're are also associated with "heavy metal", which makes them absurd in most people's eyes AFAIK, sadly tainting the perception of Black Sabbath's music.

On the other hand, can you really blame anyone for making fun of the metal steretypes they let themselves be pigeonholed into? Their reputation isn't even an accident, it's connected with their target audience, giving them their niche. Arguably their music was even influential in creating the "metal" culture.

The takeaway here could be that there are usually different angles from which it is possible to appreciate (pop) culture, and it's stupid to let one aspect taint another, but also that there's no point in pretending an aspect doesn't exist or treating it with excessive respect (i.e., making a fuss about people joking about it).

EDIT: another relevant subject here is whether there should be subjects one can't joke with. I think I would like it if nothing was off-limits to jokes (even though I'm not especially funny). E.g., I'm pretty sure September 11 is sacrosanct in USA in this regard, and there are other subjects joking about which could get many a person quite uncomfortable, like child molestation, rape, murder, suicide, etc.

I myself sometimes get quite uncomfortable when I hear jokes about Holocaust and Jews, but the real issue there is not the jokes, the jokes are just a symptom of societal issues which should make one uncomfortable. I don't know what's the best way to deal with those issues, but I'm sure that making those jokes taboo is precisely what gives them a certain attractiveness and power.

[truculent]

It is possible I am overreacting. However, I think there are is a key difference between this and your example.

A male bodybuilder, specifically, has chosen to flaunt their muscles. There is an element of control and consent to the objectification of those muscles. While pop stars obviously use their image, too, the fixation on breasts feels different to me. It is not something that the artist has invited . It reduces Spears to her physical attributes, rather than engaging with the image she has put out. It places the viewer first, not Spears.

[stareatgoats]

While I sympathize with your points I believe they are missing the mark. This isn't cringeworthy today because of the mental abuse that Spears was subjected to, or her possible underage status: this has aged terribly because there has been a seismic shift in how we (as a society in the west) talk about people in general, and women in particular. In my view, bullying and sexually tainted degradation has gone (is going) out of fashion, and not a moment too soon.

[throwaway45067]

That was my point as well, I guess I just didn't explicitly state it. Thank you for adding this comment

[aaron695]

> I'm willing to forgive

This website was ~7 years before her mental health issues became apparent. They don't need your forgiveness.

Her breakdown was handled very badly those 7 years later by society.

The Internets lack of empathy for mental illness in 2007 has been replace by the toxic virtual signalling we see today. It follows all the same patterns.

> why is there a "booble" search

If that's a genuine question, it might have been Brittney 'gif art' they have grabbed from somewhere, the logo seems to pre-date the website.

Internet humour in 2000, was like all societies as they progress, simplistic. It's a simple match of a 'rude' (but not extremely 'rude') kinda rhyme with Google.

Google also was not then what it is today, it might have been seen as somewhat of an in joke (I'm cool because I know Google and get the riff)

Britney Spears was also marketed around sex at that time. The internet allowed people to leave the medias bounds and parody it or cut to the chase.

See https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/memes-then-memes-now

[alimw]

Cheap punches? It would indeed be sad if Britney Spears herself were to see it like that, but let's hope she is more generous in her assessment of other people's motives than you are.

[tunnuz]

Agreed, this aged terribly.

[Triv888]

surprisingly, it does feature SSL though:

https://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm

[ffgjjj64chj]

Yes and no. I think it is possible to appreciate it for what it is while acknowledging the ways in which it is problematic.

I mean, can we all agree that this is neither a great work of art in the vein of a Voltaire or Boticelli, nor is it “Mein Kampf”?

The site is irreverent and crass. The level of humor you is what you would expect to find on the door of a middle school boys’ bathroom stall.

Imo that is about all the merit and demerit this deserves.

That someone seems to have put a significant amount of time and effort into this is an amusing and sad little bit of meta.

[ok123456]

It's meant to be absurd. It was never intended to be "laugh out loud" funny.

The point was the juxtaposition of semiconductor physics and a pop star who made music for tweens. Remember that she was the most popular search query on the internet for a long time, and a lot of those queries were a lot more explicit than "britney spears cleavage." Look at it as a joke attempt at SEO at making basic semi-conductor physics rank higher.

[Blikkentrekker]

Because it's humor that made me giggle.

The humor is largely derived from there being no pædagogical answer to the quæstions you asked.

[shureluck]

Are you a fundamentalist Christian? You kindof sound like one.

[blumomo]

Came here to comment the same. The pictures of Mrs. B. Spears look terrible, disgusting, not in her favor. Poor lady, I feel sorry for her.

[HenryBemis]

> and why are there charts following the cleavage line

I always believe that these girls/boys who are dancing semi-naked, at the age of 10-17 need their parents/guardians removed/imprisoned (or worse). It cannot be that (in this example) Britney Spears was clearly being sexualized while underage. This can only cause issues later in life (if not early in life too), and for the example of Britney Spears we read about it in the news.

Yes, 'normal' (not exposed to such degree) also may go off the rails and shave their heads, sue their dads, etc. but we (as a society) need to protect children better from unecessary exposure and hurtful exposure. And social media definitely do NOT help to improve things.