• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Florida School Forces Teen Girl To Put Bandaids Over Her Nipples

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
I'm glad you acknowledge that, but it runs counter (in my mind) to your comments on a person being a collection of parts. To clarify, having traits isn't the same thing as 'being a collection of parts'.
But it is not contrary. That is, unless you believe parts is limited to physical. I doubt that because we talked about non-physical things, but that is my best guest.

Let me ask you this to test something, is it demeaning to someone if you describe them physically, emotionally, ect?

We may have gotten down to the point of semantics then, as I'd argue that if you consider her a person, you aren't objectifying her for her voice. You cannot state that someone is only a voice while also stating that she's a person that's more than a voice. If you insist on this stance, I'd say it's just 'agree to disagree'.
But this is the root of the issue. I see no reason that you cannot respect her as a person and still only care about her voice. I don't care about her relationships, what movies she watches, what her favorite color is. I care that she has an amazing voice. In that sense, I am only concerned with her ability to sing.

If harm does come to her, I would still feel bad, but for 2 main reasons. One being that she is a person, the other is that we lose her voice.

Ditto to above, I consider parts to be objects, not aspects/describable traits. Note that doesn't mean you cannot describe an object (that woman has a nice ass), just that a person is not an object/collection of objects (that woman's a nice piece of ass). Agree to disagree.
So this may answer the above, but are you saying personality traits are not "parts"?

I only meant that, when referencing an individual as a collection of parts rather than in totality (which you may be doing anyhow) it diminishes them as a person. I consider myself more than an amalgamation of parts akin to a lego construction (nonphysical attributes included), as I'm sure most would agree.
You are the the totality of what makes you up, but there are things that make up who and what you are. I may like some of this and not others. If you are an entertainer, I would focus on the parts I like and not focus on the parts I do not.

This is going a bit philosophical, but imagine if an exact duplicate of you (thoughts, feelings, emotions, physical traits, etc) were created, would that be you? Or would it be another entity? Given everything is identical from a physical/nonphysical perspective, I'd still consider it to be a separate person, because it's not *me*. I'm more than a collection of parts, even if those parts are duplicated.
This is too long to answer fully, but, no that person would be both me and not me depending. Mainly not me because that person once they are created starts to live a different life from me and stops being me. What you just described is a twin.

The core of this as I've tried to elaborate above is that I consider 'parts' to be miscellaneous objects that are 'attached' in some way to a person, whether they be physical (feet, eyes, face, chest) or nonphysical (personality, mind, thoughts, emotions). The *description* of those objects is different, so describing an 'object', while it may offend someone due to you leering at them, isn't inherently offensive when taken out of the context of a human. However, identifying a person based solely from a single trait, or based solely off a single part of their person (physical or nonphysical) is diminishing. Hell, even attempting to describe them based on a list of traits or objects is diminishing, though a given person may not inherently be offended by that.
There is no reason that parts combined should not equal more than their individual sums. It just does not mean that people do not have parts.

If you're stating traits as in, objects attached to them (physical attributes) or something to do with say, their mind (an example would be, identifying Einstein based solely on his mind), that'd be objectifying them. If you're meaning traits as in, personality quirks (stating that [DHT]Osiris can be a pedantic asshole), I'd say that's not objectifying as it's just describing an aspect of them, as referenced above.
But those are still parts of a person that you can objectify. Einstein was brilliant as well as an asshole. I can be in amazement in what he did for science, and, dislike what he did to his first wife. I see nothing that makes that disrespectful in terms of his humanity.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
Don't really feel like digging up stuff, but anyone in the mainstream/liberal media? (i.e anything except Fox)? I read Economist, how about that? Not a huge fan, but The Guardian? I'll even give you Huffpo (though I'm sure they have some loonier people there). Anyone speaking for the Democratic party? MSNBC, CNN. I've basically listed the biggest and loudest voices on the liberal side, that' should be plenty of material.

Trans bathrooms is a hot issue many places. How is that not related to SJW? It's the SJW cause right now. :confused:
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/05/583362208/as-the-pop-world-seeks-accountability-justin-timberlake-seems-lost-in-the-woods

You should listen and or read the full thing, but here is the main part that fits in here.

Justin Timberlake's entire career and art is based on his ability to be smooth — his ability to be easy, to create music that seduces us with references to the past, with appropriations, with artful mixes, and never quite shows any struggle. But we are living in a moment of struggle, and we want our pop music to also reflect that struggle. And frankly, Timberlake now embodies that phrase so often spoken today: white male privilege. It's just not a good look for 2018. And it's really, in some ways, not his fault
Basically, she did not like his performance as much because he is a white male being smooth and that is not enjoyable because she wants someone to have struggled.
 

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,295
308
136
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/05/583362208/as-the-pop-world-seeks-accountability-justin-timberlake-seems-lost-in-the-woods

You should listen and or read the full thing, but here is the main part that fits in here.



Basically, she did not like his performance as much because he is a white male being smooth and that is not enjoyable because she wants someone to have struggled.
:tearsofjoy:haha! That's the best you have? A music reviewer who...dislike *shudder, a musician because he didn't struggle? A pop artist accused of being fake, how novel! This is the evil marxists who try to strip rights away from whites? By saying they dislike a performer? Wow, that's a savage attack! I bet she won't even buy the next Timberlake record either, and all down hill from there..

Reactionaries are such delicate snowflakes, any mention of white people being treated better is sure to trigger them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,104
3,970
146
But it is not contrary. That is, unless you believe parts is limited to physical. I doubt that because we talked about non-physical things, but that is my best guest.

Let me ask you this to test something, is it demeaning to someone if you describe them physically, emotionally, ect?
I don't believe parts are limited to physical, and I do not consider it demeaning to describe them in any way. I do consider it demeaning to identify them based off physical or non-physical attributes, even if it's implied positive (brainy, hottie).
But this is the root of the issue. I see no reason that you cannot respect her as a person and still only care about her voice. I don't care about her relationships, what movies she watches, what her favorite color is. I care that she has an amazing voice. In that sense, I am only concerned with her ability to sing.

If harm does come to her, I would still feel bad, but for 2 main reasons. One being that she is a person, the other is that we lose her voice.
You may intend to be respectful, but some may still consider it disrespectful to be identified based on a single attribute/quality. If for instance, you spoke to Adele and she found it offensive, your arguments would do little to minimize her anger. Intent and reality can be different.
So this may answer the above, but are you saying personality traits are not "parts"?
No, personality traits are parts, but again, the description of those parts isn't my focus, it's the identification of those people based on those personality traits. Example would be, stating a woman is a bitch (object) because they're more aggressive/ornery than others (description of trait, personality), stating someone is a meathead or jock because they are large in stature (description of trait, physical size), low in BMI (description of trait, BMI), or hits the gym a lot (description of trait, hobby).
There is no reason that parts combined should not equal more than their individual sums. It just does not mean that people do not have parts.
Agreed, never going to argue against that point. Just that the identification of a person based on those parts is objectification.
But those are still parts of a person that you can objectify. Einstein was brilliant as well as an asshole. I can be in amazement in what he did for science, and, dislike what he did to his first wife. I see nothing that makes that disrespectful in terms of his humanity.
You *can* objectify, the key is to not objectify.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
Agreed. And "SJW news" is pretty silly, like this whole debate. Anything outside Fox/Breitbart and n


:tearsofjoy:haha! That's the best you have? A music reviewer who...dislike *shudder, a musician because he didn't struggle? A pop artist accused of being fake, how novel! This is the evil marxists who try to strip rights away from whites? By saying they dislike a performer? Wow, that's a savage attack! I bet she won't even buy the next Timberlake record either, and all down hill from there..

Reactionaries are such delicate snowflakes, any mention of white people being treated better is sure to trigger them.
He did not struggle because he was from the upper class. You seem to have forgotten that the context of this is Marxism and the view of classes. Her dislike comes from the fact that he comes from a class that has it too easy (white male) and that because of that she disliked his performance. That is the very foundation of Marxism.

Nobody said it was savage, and it was a response to your question, which was ultimately an example of what I stated previously. But hey, you do you and pretend it was something else.
 

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,295
308
136
He did not struggle because he was from the upper class. You seem to have forgotten that the context of this is Marxism and the view of classes. Her dislike comes from the fact that he comes from a class that has it too easy (white male) and that because of that she disliked his performance. That is the very foundation of Marxism.

Nobody said it was savage, and it was a response to your question, which was ultimately an example of what I stated previously. But hey, you do you and pretend it was something else.
Well even so, where did she say that white SHOULD HAVE rights stripped away? I think the criticism is rather silly, but I don't feel attacked as a white male.This is rather a major issue with the "anti-SJW" crowd; they see any statement about how things are (white men are treated better) and presume the opposite is being proposed (white men should be treated worse), when that's not the case.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
I don't believe parts are limited to physical, and I do not consider it demeaning to describe them in any way. I do consider it demeaning to identify them based off physical or non-physical attributes, even if it's implied positive (brainy, hottie).

You may intend to be respectful, but some may still consider it disrespectful to be identified based on a single attribute/quality. If for instance, you spoke to Adele and she found it offensive, your arguments would do little to minimize her anger. Intent and reality can be different.

No, personality traits are parts, but again, the description of those parts isn't my focus, it's the identification of those people based on those personality traits. Example would be, stating a woman is a bitch (object) because they're more aggressive/ornery than others (description of trait, personality), stating someone is a meathead or jock because they are large in stature (description of trait, physical size), low in BMI (description of trait, BMI), or hits the gym a lot (description of trait, hobby).

Agreed, never going to argue against that point. Just that the identification of a person based on those parts is objectification.

You *can* objectify, the key is to not objectify.
Why would describing a person, positive or native, be demeaning?

Here is my position. People are more than one thing, but there may be one thing that is so unique that we can use that to describe them over all given many different contexts.

So, if you have a group of people, and one is much taller than the others, its not demeaning to say that person x is the tall one. It takes nothing away from the others or that person as they are all still people. Same thing in a porno, where one is more attractive than the others. There should be no problem saying actor x is the attractive one.

What you seem to be saying is that identifying one part is somehow going to make people not care about the person and I do not see why.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
Well even so, where did she say that white SHOULD HAVE rights stripped away? I think the criticism is rather silly, but I don't feel attacked as a white male.This is rather a major issue with the "anti-SJW" crown; they see any statement about how things are (white men are treated better) and presume the opposite is being proposed (white men should be treated worse), when that's not the case.
I don't see this needing to continue. I pointed out how modern SJWs are actually linked in their underlying principles with communists. You asked me how and I explained. You then asked for an example of the type of class issues that I talked about, I provided it. Now you are trying to make it seem like we were talking about something different.

Either your mind is too unfocused or you are purposefully trying to mislead. Either way this has lost my interest and I would much rather talk to others.
 

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,295
308
136
I don't see this needing to continue. I pointed out how modern SJWs are actually linked in their underlying principles with communists. You asked me how and I explained. You then asked for an example of the type of class issues that I talked about, I provided it.
No you didn't. You showed how someone didn't like Justin Timberlake because he's a fake-ass pop artist.
SJWs want everyone to have equal rights and be free from harassment and mistreatment from government and individuals. How is this linked with "communist principles"? (neo or OG).
You claimed they want whites to "have rights stripped away", but provided no examples of this.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,104
3,970
146
Why would describing a person, positive or native, be demeaning?

Here is my position. People are more than one thing, but there may be one thing that is so unique that we can use that to describe them over all given many different contexts.

So, if you have a group of people, and one is much taller than the others, its not demeaning to say that person x is the tall one. It takes nothing away from the others or that person as they are all still people. Same thing in a porno, where one is more attractive than the others. There should be no problem saying actor x is the attractive one.

What you seem to be saying is that identifying one part is somehow going to make people not care about the person and I do not see why.
Again, describing an individual isn't a problem, as long as they are not identified (objectified) based on those descriptions. I can say that I'm a pedantic asshole at times, I've got some liberal ideals, some conservative ideals, some that don't really fit into either camp. That doesn't make me an asshole, a liberal, or a conservative though. I would consider those objectifying traits, then identifying me as an object based on those traits.

The problem with picking a unique quality given other contexts is that it can be superbly offensive, as an example, if you're the only black person in town. Objectifying that person as 'the black guy' is pretty offensive regardless of how unique the quality is.

I'd argue that calling him 'the tall one' is demeaning. Again, that person may not be offended by it (so how demeaning it is may be up in the air) but it's limiting that person, within at minimum that discussion, to merely how tall they are. They aren't 'Jimmy' anymore, they're 'the tall one', comparable to a lamppost or a giraffe. If no other information is provided, stating that he is the tallest person isn't demeaning as he is, to the extent that you know him, the tallest person, and there's no other qualifying traits to work from. At that point, you can blame the medium through which you were provided the information (a picture didn't transmit information about the person, the person that provided you the picture didn't provide context for the lineup of people, etc). I'd still personally just refer to him as the tallest person rather than 'the tall one', because at least the former designates him as a person, rather than a trait, as the latter does. That's probably just me though.
What you seem to be saying is that identifying one part is somehow going to make people not care about the person and I do not see why.
Because humans are really really good at identifying, categorizing, and collating things. It's how we've survived as a species, beyond being able to run for a really long time. The moment you start identifying people based on a trait, you start categorizing them based on those traits. It's really easy to then start creating internal relational databases between those categorizations, which leads you to generalizing people based on those traits. At this point, they're no longer people, they're just a matrix of traits, some actual and some interpreted, which you've built about people without even knowing it.

Some people can probably objectify without forming these matrices but most do it unconsciously, which is why it's so dangerous. It's the root of racism, sexism, every other 'ism' you can come up with. It's also the root of our two party system/dumpster fire.
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,687
81
91
I was wondering how on earth a topic like this has reached 6 pages (ie. it's one of those topics that even people of normally diametrically opposed opinions will agree is a stupid thing that shouldn't have happened), then I found the reason.

It reminds me of the phenomenon that many YouTube comments threads will eventually get around to a Hitler comparison or something equally irrelevant and stupid.
This is probably in the top 10% of all topics ever posted here. Different strokes?
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
No you didn't. You showed how someone didn't like Justin Timberlake because he's a fake-ass pop artist.
SJWs want everyone to have equal rights and be free from harassment and mistreatment from government and individuals. How is this linked with "communist principles"? (neo or OG).
You claimed they want whites to "have rights stripped away", but provided no examples of this.
Nope, I said power not rights. I figured you were unable to follow and now I see that its not a mistake. Power does not equal rights.
 

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,295
308
136
Nope, I said power not rights. I figured you were unable to follow and now I see that its not a mistake. Power does not equal rights.
k, so we're getting pedantic now. SJWs want power stripped away from whites. In what way? Examples? The Timberlake thing did not show this.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
Again, describing an individual isn't a problem, as long as they are not identified (objectified) based on those descriptions. I can say that I'm a pedantic asshole at times, I've got some liberal ideals, some conservative ideals, some that don't really fit into either camp. That doesn't make me an asshole, a liberal, or a conservative though. I would consider those objectifying traits, then identifying me as an object based on those traits.
This disagrees with your next part.

The problem with picking a unique quality given other contexts is that it can be superbly offensive, as an example, if you're the only black person in town. Objectifying that person as 'the black guy' is pretty offensive regardless of how unique the quality is.
Can you explain why?

I'd argue that calling him 'the tall one' is demeaning. Again, that person may not be offended by it (so how demeaning it is may be up in the air) but it's limiting that person, within at minimum that discussion, to merely how tall they are. They aren't 'Jimmy' anymore, they're 'the tall one', comparable to a lamppost or a giraffe. If no other information is provided, stating that he is the tallest person isn't demeaning as he is, to the extent that you know him, the tallest person, and there's no other qualifying traits to work from. At that point, you can blame the medium through which you were provided the information (a picture didn't transmit information about the person, the person that provided you the picture didn't provide context for the lineup of people, etc). I'd still personally just refer to him as the tallest person rather than 'the tall one', because at least the former designates him as a person, rather than a trait, as the latter does. That's probably just me though.
Before, you said that describing an individual is not a problem, yet here you are saying that is it. This is what is confusing. Somehow you believe that its okay and also inherently demeaning.

"Hey Bill, have you seen my son recently?
"No, do you have a recent picture"
"Yes, here look"
"Oh which one is he?"
"He is the tall one on the right"

To you that is demeaning because no other information was given?

Because humans are really really good at identifying, categorizing, and collating things. It's how we've survived as a species, beyond being able to run for a really long time. The moment you start identifying people based on a trait, you start categorizing them based on those traits. It's really easy to then start creating internal relational databases between those categorizations, which leads you to generalizing people based on those traits. At this point, they're no longer people, they're just a matrix of traits, some actual and some interpreted, which you've built about people without even knowing it.
So its a slippery slope issue to you, that if we start looking at the parts, we go down a road of false assumptions?

Some people can probably objectify without forming these matrices but most do it unconsciously, which is why it's so dangerous. It's the root of racism, sexism, every other 'ism' you can come up with. It's also the root of our two party system/dumpster fire.
The root of those things are 2 main issues. Ignorance and or a desire for power. Its not a accident caused by looking at what makes up people.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,617
2,844
126
Personally, I think that attractive girls were just about the best thing about grade school. Distracting, you bet, but fantastic. I wouldn't put it down or legislate against it. I did OK in school anyway. If all the girls were made to wear un-sexy brown uniforms I think it would be awful!
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
k, so we're getting pedantic now. SJWs want power stripped away from whites. In what way? Examples? The Timberlake thing did not show this.
Yep, it fits in line with cultural appropriation. A privileged class is taking from a lesser privileged class, and its inherently wrong because of the power dynamic.

This is the last I am going to respond. This is super basic and if you call yourself a SJW and do not know the issue with power dynamics then you are talking out of your ass.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,301
1,993
126
I went with some friends to Florida in the 80s and the strip clubs could not be both fully topless and serve alcohol. If you wanted to have a liquor license the dancers had to use pasties or something else to cover the nipples. Some girls used actual pasties, others just went with little pieces of masking tape and/or bandaids. Maybe this whole thing is because some perv teacher has an odd boob/bandaid fetish left over from his teen years and wanted to make the girl apply bandaids not to hide the nipples, just because he liked it better that way.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
8,104
3,970
146
Can you explain why?
Can I explain why it's offensive to identify a person purely based off the color of their skin? Does that really need to be explained?

Not everyone will be offended by it but that doesn't mean it's not offensive and objectifying.
Before, you said that describing an individual is not a problem, yet here you are saying that is it. This is what is confusing. Somehow you believe that its okay and also inherently demeaning.

"Hey Bill, have you seen my son recently?
"No, do you have a recent picture"
"Yes, here look"
"Oh which one is he?"
"He is the tall one on the right"

To you that is demeaning because no other information was given?
Again, describing an individual's traits is not offensive. Labeling as *only* a given trait, or even set of traits (to an extent) is offensive/objectifying them. In this scenario I would say it's not offensive because it's been identified that we're talking about a person, that person is the tall individual on the right.

Saying 'Bill's son is one of those tall sorts' is objectifying, as it's labeling this person as merely an object with a single qualifier, 'tall'. If someone asks you 'describe bill's kid' and you don't know anything about him, saying 'I don't know him personally, only that he's tall' is not objectifying him. Saying 'he's a tall one' would be objectifying. Maybe not offensive, but objectifying nontheless. Carry this same scenario over to other traits and you can quickly get into offensive territory.
So its a slippery slope issue to you, that if we start looking at the parts, we go down a road of false assumptions?
Pretty much, by permitting ourselves to label and identify based off traits, however mundane and unoffensive, we permit ourselves the notion of labeling based off whatever we like. We also permit ourselves to start categorizing, making false assumptions, etc. Again, not everyone may do this, but I've seen it in most people hence why I like to study/point it out, and avoid it whenever possible.
The root of those things are 2 main issues. Ignorance and or a desire for power. Its not a accident caused by looking at what makes up people.
On this we agree, though I'd posit a lot of that ignorance gets manifested in the fact that once we start assuming traits, and new labels based on our categorizations of people above, we no longer feel we need to learn more about those people. If you assume I'm a liberal based on my statements in this thread about offensive nature of labels, objectification of women/minorities, etc, you might also assume that I'm probably anti-gun. If you follow other threads that I've posted in, you might think I'm a loose-cannon gun nutter because I've got very strong opinions about personal rights and freedoms, and probably have similarly conservative views on other topics. Both of those would be wrong.

The power thing is a completely different topic, but yeah it's a massive contributor to our current state of affairs. I've long said that the kind of person who desires power is often the last kind of person that needs to be in power. That's really more of a platitude/generalization though. I more just wish most humans weren't primarily attracted to leadership by alpha status though.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
894
126
I went with some friends to Florida in the 80s and the strip clubs could not be both fully topless and serve alcohol. If you wanted to have a liquor license the dancers had to use pasties or something else to cover the nipples. Some girls used actual pasties, others just went with little pieces of masking tape and/or bandaids. Maybe this whole thing is because some perv teacher has an odd boob/bandaid fetish left over from his teen years and wanted to make the girl apply bandaids not to hide the nipples, just because he liked it better that way.
People eat poop, so anything is possible.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,611
3,404
126
I have to apologize for not keeping up with all the tit for tat that's come up in the latter part of this thread, and hope, therefore not to be wrong in assuming we've strayed from what I think is the nub of the subject, the prominence of the point that nipples seem factually distracting and what to do about it. What does it mean to say that nipples are distracting? Who gets distracted and why? Is there a responsibility not to be distracting or does the responsibility lie in not being distracted. Who should feel shame or be shamed when distraction is claimed. Should society be a nudist beach? Should men and women both wear a veil and fully cover the body? We know what happened to Hawaiian laidbackness when folk from the sexually repressed West arrived. The Hawaiians tell me there is no genetic prohibition that can account why social norms here demand no breast distractions. People are drawn to things that become sexual taboo. Is the cause of nipple suppression the result of sexual repression? What do we lose when thing lose their repression created sexual allure? Would that not indicate a growth in mental health?
 

justoh

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2013
3,687
81
91
The Hawaiians tell me there is no genetic prohibition that can account why social norms here demand no breast distractions.
Must be why you CAN have both fully nude strippers and alcohol in Hawaii.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,302
1,204
126
He did not struggle because he was from the upper class. You seem to have forgotten that the context of this is Marxism and the view of classes. Her dislike comes from the fact that he comes from a class that has it too easy (white male) and that because of that she disliked his performance. That is the very foundation of Marxism.

Nobody said it was savage, and it was a response to your question, which was ultimately an example of what I stated previously. But hey, you do you and pretend it was something else.
Have you listened to music lately? It seems to have a pretty much replaced good song writing and creativity with choreography. I watched the Grammys and thought...... wow a bunch of absolute shit music combined with dancing.... how impressive.... not.
 

mindless1

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
5,617
519
126
I was wondering how on earth a topic like this has reached 6 pages (ie. it's one of those topics that even people of normally diametrically opposed opinions will agree is a stupid thing that shouldn't have happened), then I found the reason.
It's because everything else wrong with society, all started with perky teen nipples. We fix that and it's all gravy.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY