Things on the internet

[Edit: Potentially disturbing photo moved below the fold out of deference to the delicate sensibilities of the LGM readership. Note the effect is, to quote Woolsey, J., more likely to be an emetic than an aphrodisiac, NTTAWWT]

(1) I’m tempted to ask SEK for a semiotic analysis of this:

yikes

(2) Be very careful if you use Google Image to try to find a photo via the query “Guy in underwear with gun.”

82 comments on this post.
  1. c u n d gulag:

    Thank for reminding me – I need some Brillo pads after having baked a big fat ham a couple of nights ago.

  2. Charlie Sweatpants:

    Leave it to you liberal thugs to demonize a man for posing with his Guitar Hero guitar.

  3. rea:

    On the internet, no one know you are really a dog . . .

  4. Hogan:

    It’s been fun, everyone. I’ll be back when this post is off the front page.

  5. Malaclypse:

    Seriously. The last thing this blog needs is a picture of JenBob up on the front page.

  6. Law Spider:

    THIS picture is precisely the type of item for which “under the fold” was (or should have been) developed.

  7. STH:

    What I want to know is whether he was looking for a man or a woman, ’cause I can’t figure out who in the hell that picture is supposed to appeal to. Am I (a woman) supposed to get all tingly about seeing a man about to shoot himself in the foot?

  8. Mister Harvest:

    “Athletic.” You keep using that word…

  9. Substance McGravitas:

    Hmm, I remember him. The Poor Man or Sadly, No!

    Titles came later I think.

  10. rea:

    Not only that, but if you look along the edges of his underware, you’ll see he has a bad case of diaper rash . . .

  11. Karen:

    ARRRRRGHHH!! I looked where you said, now my eyes have melted from the horror. For the love of humanity NEVER look!

  12. Origami Isopod:

    Oh, you’re just seeing that one for the first time, huh? It’s an oldie.

  13. thebewilderness:

    Unless you know that the person shared the pic the the whole wide interwebs themselves I take a dim view of posting pics to shame and humiliate the target. It has become a very serious problem for the very young who may only be goofing around when trusting someone unworthy of trust and next thing they know they are targeted.
    This was not well though out. I hope you rethink it.

  14. ScottRS:

    That’s not JenBob??

  15. thebewilderness:

    I would imagine he was doing it to please the person taking the picture, as so many people do.

  16. Jberardi:

    So, uhh…. he’s ransoming his junk, then?

    I hope his demands aren’t too high…

  17. Woodrowfan:

    I think it’s our new resident troll…

  18. rea:

    Poe’s Law strikes again . . .

  19. Jberardi:

    It has become a very serious problem for the very young who may only be goofing around when trusting someone unworthy of trust and next thing they know they are targeted.

    You know what else is a serious problem? When people who don’t have the basis sense to keep their hairy twats off teh Google are allowed to own MANY DEADLY FIREARMS.

  20. STH:

    I assumed it was for an online dating site, but maybe that was a bad assumption.

  21. CaptBackslap:

    Pun intended, I assume?

  22. Philip:

    This would be a valid point if the picture were actually of one of those kids.

  23. lightbulbout:

    this is somethingawful.com forums poster Micromancer. he is one crazy guy. there are more pictures from the series.

  24. Leeds man:

    Could be a baseball player, or a football lineman.

  25. Sherm:

    I just knew that this comment would be made.

  26. Sherm:

    What’s his BMI?

  27. KLG:

    If he’s not careful he could leave that room half-cocked.

  28. GFW:

    Ewww.

  29. cpinva:

    i assumed the same thing, though which particular one remains a mystery.

    I assumed it was for an online dating site, but maybe that was a bad assumption.

  30. Jay C:

    Umm, should we assume that “foot” is meant to be a euphemism??

  31. repsac3 ("'Foot' [more like 4 inches, prolly]...on a stick"):

    “Don’t move, or this dickhead gets it.”

  32. actor212:

    Wow. David Gregory dyed his hair?

  33. FLRealist:

    As a woman, I’m going, “ewwwwwwww.” Your miles may vary.

  34. FLRealist:

    Yeah. I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.

  35. FLRealist:

    No. More. Pictures. Allowed.

  36. ignobility:

    He’ll shoot his balls off! He’ll shoot his balls off!

  37. LeeEsq:

    Looks more like a bear to me.

  38. Incontinentia Buttocks:

    Win

  39. misfire:

    You just know he jacked it having a gun fantasy two minutes after that photo was taken.

  40. Anonymous:

    Darts, perhaps?

  41. Rhino:

    Dart snark was me

  42. Leeds man:

    With the Klingon hairstyle, yes.

  43. brandon:

    I wasn’t quite sure I respected Russell Brand as an actor, but damn if he isn’t doing the legwork to get into that role.

  44. Sharon:

    This

  45. DrDick:

    Actually somewhat better looking than I thought.

  46. DrDick:

    As a human being, I am going “Yuck!!”

  47. DrDick:

    On steroids.

  48. DrDick:

    What balls?

  49. DocAmazing:

    You can tell he’s thinking “If this doesn’t get my place into Architectural Digest, nothing will.”

  50. ChrisTS:

    Triple EWW.

  51. ChrisTS:

    God, I know. Curse mine eyes!

  52. ChrisTS:

    Depends on his aim, I guess.

  53. ChrisTS:

    There really should be some internets-wide system of flagging.

  54. ChrisTS:

    I’m still struggling with ’23.’

  55. Kurzleg:

    Game-changing steroids.

  56. Maureen O'Danu:

    The angle. OMG. It looks like he’s holding his penis hostage ‘date me or I’ll shoot it off’. Poor thing. Judging from the evidence, unless he’s a very good shot, he’ll miss. The target is VERY small.

  57. STH:

    I agree that it’s out of bounds to shame somebody for his or her looks, and I do my best to avoid it. What I’m talking about–and I do consider more justifiable–is the pose and the implication that posing with your gun collection is somehow sexy.

  58. Davis X. Machina:

    Hugo Black could only have the position he had on the First Amendment because he didn’t have a chance to see that picture.

  59. parsimon:

    Is the “23/Male/Athletic/Successful” actually original to the picture?

  60. greylocks:

    Then there’s the bed.

  61. Bill Cross:

    shooting events are in the Olympics

  62. Pastor Tobin Maker D.D:

    Russell Brand has really let himself go.

  63. rea:

    There are certain aspects of the guy’s online persona that lead me to suspect him of being a black fly in our chardonney ironic intent.

  64. STH:

    Under the bus.

  65. Lancelot Link:

    Okay, here you go; by request, MORE PICTURES!

  66. Phoenix Rising:

    And he’s ready for the pentathlon too. Sponsored by Lady Godiva.

  67. Snarki, child of Loki:

    I think you’re right about that. That thought dredges up loads of muck from the thankfully-forgotten earlier eras of the intertubes.

    Whatever you do NEVER google for “Spanky the Clown”

  68. Timb:

    Yay, Brandon. Just wonderful

  69. Anonymous:

    I agree with this comment. Apart from the gun fetish, what exactly did this dude do to deserve creepy fat-shaming bullying? Hetero male commenters feigning exaggerated outraged disgust at other men’s bodies is fucking gross and homophobic, dudes.

  70. Anonymous:

    Whenever thebewilderness–a fairly regular commenter here–posts something the least bit dissenting, she’s called a poe or a troll. Pay attention, please.

  71. Manju:

    Puh-leeze. Just a few days ago you guys were begging to see his head on a stick.

  72. montag2:

    I suspect so. Successful is misspelled.

  73. herr doktor bimler:

    IIRC correctly they were featured by The Editors several years ago or last Tuesday.

  74. John Protevi:

    You really do have some good ones at times, Manju. + 1

  75. witless chum:

    Double fucking this. I really don’t get grossed out by the big, naked hairy dude. I see something similar, though with a more socially acceptable hairstyle, in the mirror every morning.

    Do people really mean it, or is it performative? Like the guys who will turn out to say a slightly chubby celebrity woman they’d crawl across glass to fuck in real life is “eww, gross, dudez?” I never know if they really mean it or if they just say shit because they think they’re supposed to say it. I cut out saying shit like that around age 20, but I’m never sure if I’m actually experiencing things differently or if I’m just more honest.

  76. Slocum:

    At least he has a ready, lifetime supply of cheese.

  77. witless chum:

    +2

  78. witless chum:

    Is like being in high school, when I determined my far flung hometown was precisely two years behind the more fashionable portions of the state by questioning the other attendees at a nerdcamp about when they’d last tight rolled their jeans? If we get this picture now, when will Campos post other years old Internet things?

    I’m looking forward to clicking on a law school corruption link and finding myself Rickrolled.

  79. Halloween Jack:

    As noted below, the subject is a Something Awful goon that goes by the name Micromancer who has deliberately posted more risible pictures than this of himself. If you can’t fit that into your worldview, I’m sure that there’s a circus with a sad clown that you can lecture about how they’re making money off of someone’s grief.

  80. Anonymous:

    Oh, dude. It fits my worldview just fine. Men intent on proving publicly their het credentials are the ones with a problem. Obviously.

    The fact that Micro’s one their side makes this display all the more pathetic.

  81. Anonymous:

    I never know if they really mean it or if they just say shit because they think they’re supposed to say it.

    Neither me, but I suspect the latter. Stating dumb and largely subjective opinions loudly and as if they’re factual is sort of the default mode for some men. Gawking at Uglies is part of that sport.

    Plus, it would blow a lot of these dudes’ brains to realize that many heterosexual women would find this man (silly pose and guns aside but ‘do included) attractive. Which is why stuff like this is slightly bothersome in the first place; denying the existence of female desire as broad and as strange (to some) as male desire.

  82. Anonymous:

    Here’s fun: a photograph of a perfectly normal male body elicits from the commentariat disproportionately camp and theatrical expressions of revulsion, but I’m the one acting too sensitive. Hilarious.

Leave a comment