Stupid World

[TheDemonLord]

Rolling Stnes - Satisaction (1965 )


When I'm watchin' my TV and a man comes on and tells me
How white my shirts can be
But, he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke
The same cigarettes as me ...



People were sick of it then ..

If you don't like it - use the fucking OFF switch ..


PS - I recently heard this as the music for a car ad - can't remember which one - I thought 'How Ironic' ..

Where's the Off switch for overt Political Ideology? I mean - almost all the items in the list I presented have suffered large scale losses as a result of poisoning their content with their political viewpoint - yet companies are still doing it.

If customers are voting with their Wallets and the companies are still doing it - what next?

Do we the fans get to take over control of the IP so we can remake a beloved franchise as it should be?

[Katman]

https://goo.gl/images/VXhdWP

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

[Graystone]

They own Gillette. These are the people spoon feeding you platitudes to encourage you to buy a razor. It's a marketing campaign not the Gettysburg address.

I'd warrant even an emasculated pussy like you didn't learn a single new thing from that ad.

Are you unclear of the purpose of advertisements?

Greystone seems to be having difficulty ejecting EvilCorps dick from his throat at the moment but will no doubt be along shortly claiming that he enjoyed the experience, didn't value his gag reflex that highly and had re evaluated his experience of masculinity accordingly.

Is that supposed to be relevant?

So, you can probably guess which side of this debate I sit on - but I'm curious:

By what rationale or right does an advert for Razor blades have to morally lecture someone about Social issues? Serious or otherwise?

Not only the above, but it comes with a presupposition that the viewpoint they are advocating is objectively right, and not only that, but said presupposition is neither earned nor comes with any form of Mandate.

All the best ads 'start with why'. The ad would have you believe Gillette wants men to be the best that they can be, how they do that is with the best shave possible for a man's appearance to be the best possible, what they use to do it are razor blades. Selling an idea is a far more powerful marketing strategy than selling a commodity product.

As to the message itself, it violates no advertising laws, and they pay to get it out there, no mandate or morale rationale is required.

[carbonhed]

Are you unclear of the purpose of advertisements?



Is that supposed to be relevant?



All the best ads 'start with why'. The ad would have you believe Gillette wants men to be the best that they can be, how they do that is with the best shave possible for a man's appearance to be the best possible, what they use to do it are razor blades. Selling an idea is a far more powerful marketing strategy than selling a commodity product.

As to the message itself, it violates no advertising laws, and they pay to get it out there, no mandate or morale rationale is required.

He swallowed

[TheDemonLord]

All the best ads 'start with why'.

I'm not entirely certain I agree with that, but whatevs.

The ad would have you believe Gillette wants men to be the best that they can be, how they do that is with the best shave possible for a man's appearance to be the best possible, what they use to do it are razor blades. Selling an idea is a far more powerful marketing strategy than selling a commodity product.

No, but this point has I think illuminated what is objectionable about the Ad:

The definition of what makes a Man the best he can be is a negotiated Social Contract. Men decide who is Best among them, and when there is disagreement (typically) will engage in conflict to resolve it (not necessarily fighting - Sport, Debate, etc.) - but that's only half of the Coin, Women ALSO decide who is Best among Men, and settle the disagreement via Mate selection (effectively).

Whilst not an exact science - the major character traits are generally well know: Confident, Resilient, Fit/Healthy, Successful, Tall, Competent, Humble, self-sacrificing, Conscientious etc. etc.

Basically take every Action Hero from every Action Movie, Extract the Meta Character traits and combine them from every Meta trait from Fabio from every Mills and Boon novel.

We know it, Women know it. And now Gillette wish to replace this, with a narrative that isn't based on that, it's based purely on an ideological viewpoint that the majority of Men and Women don't agree with. That in of-itself isn't the most egregious part, it's the implicit lauding of this faux-moral superiority over the rest of us dirty, unwashed plebeians that is the offensive part.

As to the message itself, it violates no advertising laws, and they pay to get it out there, no mandate or morale rationale is required.

Did I say it violated it? No, I said it assumes the Moral highground without having either earned it or being elected to it.

[oldrider]

The Terrible Truth About "Ireland 2040" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkl1...ature=youtu.be

Curiosity made me linger and listen to this little burble and it got me wondering what's in it for the future of Gods-own?

[Viking01]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...-closer-russia

Just when you think that the Russians can't come up with another
cunning trick to best the US military, they surprise you yet again.

[carbonhed]

The UN has now appointed Yemen to VP of the Gender Equality Agency. 149th out of 149 countries on the Gender Gap scale.

Thank fuck for the UN I say. Every bureaucracy is shit and the bigger the bureaucracy..................

https://www.unwatch.org/un-elects-ye...uality-agency/

[oldrider]

So a real world still exists out there:- https://twitter.com/HenryMakow/statu...rymakow.com%2F

[nerrrd]

About the Gilette ad, I think you’re over-thinking it.

Never underestimate the ability of ad agency types to talk their clients into their next ‘big idea’, nor how bored their creatives get trying to come up with it, nor how likely they are to jump on a ‘worthy’ bandwagon to make themselves feel better about what they’re doing for a living.

[oldrider]

Here is the "Real world" - just for a moment? :- https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses...77098247454720 -

[Viking01]

https://jackrasmus.com/2019/01/09/tr...de-war-part-i/

[Banditbandit]

Jesus. You're arguing about an ad you haven't even seen and I'm the stupid one

Fucking priceless. God it must be great to be an academic.

Where have I argued about an ad?

I'm suggesting you drop kicks are getting upset over bugger all .. that has nothing to do with the specific ad ..

[Viking01]

I have to admit finding it difficult trying to get a good understanding
why the UK wanted to exit the EU, and of the Brexit process itself.

Now the vote on the Withdrawal Agreement Document has been taken
(and lost, resoundingly), May then had three days to come up with an
alternative plan (Monday 21st January - today UK time). The Withdrawal
Agreement document actually allowed 21 days for this phase, but May
chose the minimum time allowable.

And there is one further date (29 March 2019) where, if no high level
Withdrawal Agreement can be agreed in the interim ("No Deal"), then
the UK will (by default) automatically exit the EU.

Even if "No Deal" is the outcome, the UK and EU will then need to start
another negotiation cycle, in order to specify how they will interact with
one another going forward.


I have been collecting links to Brexit related documents over the past 18
months, simply to try and find some good explanation:

- Why go through this "divorce" process ? What were the perceived benefits
of Brexit to the UK, and did they justify all this effort and upheaval ?

- Whether UK politicians recognised the potential (adverse) impact upon UK
companies and citizens - as well as the magnitude of UK-EU negotiation
likely required in the event of a "No Deal" outcome.

I attach links for a few of these documents, in case they are of interest.

1. Simple Guide to the UK leaving the EU

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46318565

2. Why are People Cheering for a "No Deal" ?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...on-time-brexit

3. What a "No Deal" Decision Could Mean

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45511297
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uplo...l-Revisted.pdf

[Graystone]

I'm not entirely certain I agree with that, but whatevs.



No, but this point has I think illuminated what is objectionable about the Ad:

The definition of what makes a Man the best he can be is a negotiated Social Contract. Men decide who is Best among them, and when there is disagreement (typically) will engage in conflict to resolve it (not necessarily fighting - Sport, Debate, etc.) - but that's only half of the Coin, Women ALSO decide who is Best among Men, and settle the disagreement via Mate selection (effectively).

Whilst not an exact science - the major character traits are generally well know: Confident, Resilient, Fit/Healthy, Successful, Tall, Competent, Humble, self-sacrificing, Conscientious etc. etc.

Basically take every Action Hero from every Action Movie, Extract the Meta Character traits and combine them from every Meta trait from Fabio from every Mills and Boon novel.

We know it, Women know it. And now Gillette wish to replace this, with a narrative that isn't based on that, it's based purely on an ideological viewpoint that the majority of Men and Women don't agree with. That in of-itself isn't the most egregious part, it's the implicit lauding of this faux-moral superiority over the rest of us dirty, unwashed plebeians that is the offensive part.



Did I say it violated it? No, I said it assumes the Moral highground without having either earned it or being elected to it.

Your agreement is not required.

You might think it objectionable, but your question was by what rationale or right do they have to present their view on such issues...