>This is National Geographic now What the FUCK. [EXIF data

>>2932218
>being surprised that magazines are struggling in a digital world

>>2932218
...what exactly is the point of the chick flashing nature picture?

>>2932218
>new museum showcases african american lives
>changing face of europe

ewww.

>>2932223

its a lewdprude thing, to show but not really. good for social media upboats without risking being labeled slut.

>>2932220
>being surprised at trashiness in a Rupert Murdoch publication

>>2932218
3, 5, 1, 2, 4

>>2932256
4 and 5 have the same body homie

5 2 4 3 1

>>2932218

Why is it that blacks never do these types of photos? Do they even trip outside of their city?

>>2932264
>Why is it that blacks never do these types of photos?
They have more self-respect

>>2932264
Blacks get clothing with freedom.

who took the picture? hopefully not David Guttenfelder

>>2932529
I can tell what with the riots.

>>2932264
They do, but it goes on their tumblr.

>>2932785

you lie.

File: Neat.jpg (46KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x533px

>>2932796
Is that an obabo joke?

>>2932218

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/7560326

At least one girl has wrecked her life by whipping her puppies out on a mountain top. Odd for NG to be highlighting it with a cover photo.

>>2932808
HAHAHAHA

Disrespectful fucks.

File: mqdefault.jpg (15KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 320x180px

>>2932808

Dumb yank tourist doing dumb yank things. Hope she rots in jail. She's the right amount of THICC, though.

>>2932218
The magazine industry fucking died in the 2008 recession

>>2932808
~Just settler colonial things~
So glad she's facing charges

Smart phone, dumb users

>>2932872
Epic

>>2933002
Nope homie, when you're in a religion's holy place, you show respect -- doesn't matter if you're Mr. Super Holy Enlightened Atheist or whatever. It's not only common decency, but also a way to keep your ass from getting beat, killed, or gone to jail.

Nat Geo has always ran articles on pop culture and stuff. Dunno what you fags are all upset about. Seems like a totally reasonable article to run with what I imagine would be good of good editorial work. Been subscribed for almost 10 years now.

>>2933006

paper magazines have been dumbing themselves down steadily in the last years.

>>2933009
Nat Geo has remained pretty solid imo. Some issues are better than others. My grandparents used to buy my parents a subscription every year for Xmas so they have magazines dating back to ~1981. I still flip through those when I go home to visit and I'd say the quality hasn't gone down at all. Still good editorial and fantastic photography.

Nat Geo was never strictly about landscapes, animals, and African tribes. Its always been about anything and everything happening on the planet.

Has anyone read into the article even?

>>2933005
Would it be the same if bunch of Chinese tourists dropped their pants and mooned the gravestones in Arlington Cemetery or Westminster Abbey?

Pop culture is fine, absolutely. But waggling you genitals in another culture's sacred places is just a white trash+iphone generation saying "look at me hurr duh hurrr"

Also, this shit has been going on for at least 6 years now.

http://www.mtnbabes.com

I shot a photo thats somewhere far back in the 2010ish archives.

>>2933012
>Would it be the same if bunch of Chinese tourists dropped their pants and mooned the gravestones in Arlington Cemetery or Westminster Abbey?
Pretty sure that the answer is yes.
>Pop culture is fine, absolutely. But waggling you genitals in another culture's sacred places is just a white trash+iphone generation saying "look at me hurr duh hurrr"
You aren't following the comment chain, are you?

Heres the article before you look at the cover andmake assumptions over what the article is even about.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/10/unplugging-the-selfie-generation-national-parks/

>>2933015
>Pretty sure that the answer is yes.
No it wouldn't and you know it.

>>2933015
>Pretty sure that the answer is yes.

no it wouldnt. how about some real "sacred places" in the west. how about going to auschwitz and salute the fuhrer? would german authorities wash it off as "oh just some zany tourists"?

>>2933022
>>2933021
What the fuck are you two trying to say? They'd be arrested for doing this shit at Arlington which they'd deserve.

>>2933020
Just read the article. It's a great piece with some fantastic photography.

>>2933020
I don't see how this story was remarkably worse than the usual (good) NatGeo standard. If anything it actually is a good example of living with the times.

>>2932218
>playboy stops doing porn
>national geographic starts doing porn
just as keikaku

>>2933024
>>2933136
It's very parochial though. It's only about what Americans do in American national parks and makes no mention of what Americans (or Australians and Brits) do in other countries temples and sacred places.

I think it was the blasé and racist attitude towards the latter that triggered the earlier anons

>>2933194
>It's very parochial though
Wat? It's about America's NP system, which is celebrating its centennial, and about the upcoming generation of Americans who will eventually have a say in how the parks continue to be protected. Why should the article be stretched to include other temples and shit?

>>2933198

because it would be good to advice the dumb yanks to not do stupid shit in foreign lands?

File: why.gif (3KB, 262x236px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 262x236px

>/p/ is full of retards

>>2933263

>implying most foreign lands didn't beg for intervention

>>2933198
I'm not going to argue you stupid little shit, read the fucking thread!

>>2933194
Who'd have thunk an American magazine with "national" it's title might from time to time focus on things about America?

>>2932818
>Dumb yank tourist doing dumb yank things. Hope she rots in jail. She's the right amount of THICC, though.

Give me a fucking break. The only reason she was potentially facing jail time is because the Malaysian government believes she caused the earthquake by angering the Gods. In other words, they're fucking stupid. I don't care how holy or sacred a site is, you don't go to jail for exposing yourself. A fine and being barred entrance for an amount of time, then sure.

I know it's cool and all to act hardcore on the internet with zero fucks given, but you're just making yourself look stupid.

>>2933487
>implying most countries don't have laws against public indecency

>>2933487
>I don't care how holy or sacred a site is
>They'd be arrested for doing this shit at Arlington which they'd deserve.

Americans think they re the only ones that matter, they assume no-one will notice their hypocrisy, which is why so many people think they're a bunch of self-obsessed cunts.

>Malaysian government believes she caused the earthquake by angering the Gods
The Malaysian Government doesn't think that at all, the Malaysian Government is mostly muslim. Who, in their right mind, gets their tits out in a muslim country just for a fucking selfishie.

>>2933603
I don't think you're replying to an American. Americans are used to stupid laws regarding nudity. Most places here you can end up on a sex offender registry for public nudity.

>>2932810
>h.how dare he disrespect a culture and imply the earth isn't flat! jail him!

Except apply it to so special third world culture cucked asians and it's somehow reasonable to you. Fucking kill yourself.

>>2935821
>>h.how dare he disrespect a culture and imply the earth isn't flat! jail him!
>Except apply it to so special third world culture cucked asians and it's somehow reasonable to you. Fucking kill yourself.
Damn, there's so much strawman in this thread.

It's funny because you me-llinial shits don't seem to understand that there are consequences to doing things like breaking laws and shitting on things that you don't agree with. You seem to think that you're above such consequences because you're oh-so enlightened and disagree with whatever behavior you think is backwards.

When you're in another man's house you follow his rules or you face the consequences. It doesn't matter if these rules are fair or make sense to you, they still hold power over you.

>>2935834
>When you're in another man's house you follow his rules or you face the consequences. It doesn't matter if these rules are fair or make sense to you, they still hold power over you.

I mean, this was the rules in my house growing up. There were certain things my parents said I absolutely could not do until after I moved out. Do kids these days not have it the same?

>>2935940
>Do kids these days not have it the same?

these days kids can get their parents thrown into jail for "abuse" aka. normal parenting.