Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Tony EH wrote: »

Mmmm...quite often I've found that those who constantly rail against "wokeness" are one's that get quite het up themselves over the mildest of disagreements.

Frankly, I don't know who's worse. The so called "woke" crowd or the ones that constantly bleat on and on about it.

Well, some conservative commentators spent four years delighting in some left-wingers not accepting the result of the Brexit referendum and the 2016 US election. That criticism was fair, IMO. However it’s been notable how silent those same commentators have been to the reaction of Trump and many of his supporters to his election loss. Most hypocritical.

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

However, calling on white European men to defend “their/our” women is mental carry on.

Pretty much.

I have a particular interest in Asian women, and if I ever (unlikely as it is) marry, I suspect it will be with an Asian woman.

I have little patience with the belief that we should stick to our own ethnic group. Regardless of whether you're male or female, be with whoever you want to be with.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure, I get that... but you seem to believe that money doesn't flow from those with these woke agendas. Many powerful/wealthy people/organisations/groups have their interests in such things, either because it's how they made their money, or have since become interested. In any case, they have the money to invest, and push an agenda.

You couldn't be more wrong and I'm unsure at how you arrived at that, especially when the thrust of my posts specifically emphasise the profit concerns of such "powerful/wealthy people/organisations/groups".

You know, Gillette didn't make that ad so people would end up hating them or because they wanted to change people's minds on something. They did it to get people talking about Gillette, who had been losing money (like Wilkinson Sword and every other shaving business) because millennials were growing beards. They made something controversial (mildly controversial) to get people taking, because people talking about your company/product makes money.

But Gillette (and their shareholders) doesn't give two fucks about anything else except selling their stuff and will use whatever to try an achieve that.

Biker79

Omackeral wrote: »

You see to me, there’s probably a bit of merit in this post.

However, calling on white European men to defend “their/our” women is mental carry on.

I never called on anyone to do anything.

Banana Republic 1

You people can’t even woke right.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

You couldn't be more wrong and I'm unsure at how you arrived at that, especially when the thrust of my posts specifically emphasise the profit concerns of such "powerful/wealthy people/organisations/groups".

You know, Gillette didn't make that ad so people would end up hating them or because they wanted to change people's minds on something. They did it to get people talking about Gillette, who had been losing money (like Wilkinson Sword and every other shaving business) because millennials were growing beards. They made something controversial (mildly controversial) to get people taking, because people talking about your company/product makes money.

But Gillette (and their shareholders) doesn't give two fucks about anything else except selling their stuff and will use whatever to try an achieve that.

Nope. Sorry. I don't buy it. I accept that money is the prime motivator, but there is a lot more going on, at the same time.

Ok. Here's an example. I have a portfolio of investments, and every profit cycle, my advisor recommends companies to me for to invest (since I reinvest all profits). When we originally met, he asked me if I had any preferences about the companies I wished to invest in.

Not simply what they produced (moral qualms about weapons or such), but also about the manner in which they produced their products/services (green energy, or more diverse composition of employees). There were a wide range of questions because many investors who become shareholders care that they're investing in a company that reflects their own values. Considering the range of companies available internationally, it's easily possible to match your values with a diverse portfolio which can still make good returns. And should the commitment of the investor be large enough, they can make their values known at shareholder meetings, often by gaining support with other like minded individuals or groups. I've seen this happen in a few companies whose share spread wasn't so wide, and interested parties gobbled up what was available.

Many people out there care more than simply making money. Once you reach the comfortable stage (knowing that you're secure), you can be more interested in other pursuits. While making profits is nice, I know people who invest in companies because they believe in the potential of the product itself, or the vision of the company. The early days of Tesla is a good example of this where many people invested in the company even before profits became a likely return...

Shareholders, especially affluent shareholders, can often care about the image of the company and how it behaves, because they believe it reflects on them. Again, once you're secure in your finances, you might want a more personal investment than simply marking blips on a screen.

In the case of Gillette, they gambled... and they lost. You can believe that it was an intentional strategy to simply generate news... but since Gillette were/are one of the primary companies in their marketspace, they didn't need that kind of publicity. They were already well known for quality (and expense). They sought to tap into another market, and believed that customer loyalty would prevent any kind of backlash. They were wrong.

Rupert Murdoch, built up a media empire with profit in mind, but over the last decade, has pushed that empire into promoting his own view of the world, supporting what he supports, and seeking to tear down what he doesn't. He has sacrificed profitability, in order to pursue his own political agenda(s).

The same can be said for other companies who have decided to wed themselves to particular political or social campaigns. Profit/money is not the only motivator anymore.

Once you've reached your profit expectations, what do you do next? Just make more money, or find ways to exercise the power that you have?

Quantum Erasure

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

You people can’t even woke right.

Its woke left

biko

Baizuo, stop drinking coffee.

Note, this may not be a real article. Cannot find a link to the actual article.

Quantum Erasure

Just ask for a flat white...

km991148

biko wrote: »

Baizuo, stop drinking coffee.

here - I have a cheque for you - I need you to send me some funds first then I will post it. Its for 100 million Nigerian pounds - but if you jest send me €50 as a deposit I will ship it right away.

Just to spell it out - I am saying anyone who buys this is gullible - just as well it's on AH :pac:

Coffee is made by Black people for Black people?

Bloody hell.

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

Coffee is made by Black people for Black people?

Bloody hell.

:pac:

Try not to look for outrage then you won't find it.

Also - blindly reading headlines from other people that move in the same circles as you is not good for your health!

This is a great lesson on how the internet works as some people just don't really get it.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

:pac:

Try not to look for outrage then you won't find it.

Where do you see outrage in my post? Any cursing, bitching, moaning? Ahh.. my use of bloody hell signifies outrage to you? Wow.. people really have become sensitive if that's the case.

Also - blindly reading headlines from other people that move in the same circles as you is not good for your health!

Err.. nobody here moves in the same circles as me.. except for one other person, who hasn't posted in quite some time. Where are you getting this junk from?

This is a great lesson on how the internet works as some people just don't really get it.

But you do. congratulations. :rolleyes:

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

biko wrote: »

Baizuo, stop drinking coffee.

Any link to the actual article? I can't find it anywhere, just images like this. It's almost like it's not real.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. Sorry. I don't buy it. I accept that money is the prime motivator, but there is a lot more going on, at the same time.

Ok. Here's an example. I have a portfolio of investments, and every profit cycle, my advisor recommends companies to me for to invest (since I reinvest all profits). When we originally met, he asked me if I had any preferences about the companies I wished to invest in.

Not simply what they produced (moral qualms about weapons or such), but also about the manner in which they produced their products/services (green energy, or more diverse composition of employees). There were a wide range of questions because many investors who become shareholders care that they're investing in a company that reflects their own values. Considering the range of companies available internationally, it's easily possible to match your values with a diverse portfolio which can still make good returns. And should the commitment of the investor be large enough, they can make their values known at shareholder meetings, often by gaining support with other like minded individuals or groups. I've seen this happen in a few companies whose share spread wasn't so wide, and interested parties gobbled up what was available.

Nothing above is counter to what I've said, so I'm not sure why you spent time typing it.

Sure optics are important to businesses, especially nowadays and some will tout their "values" to their base (and therefore make money). But values change and with businesses they'd change in a heartbeat if they weren't working.

Some businesses won't work with other businesses because it's bad for business. Mars stopped allowing their ads on YouTube because of certain videos, for instance. But that had fuck all to do with their morals and more to do with their fear of being associated with "undesirable" YouTube opinion merchants.

Deleted User wrote: »

Many people out there care more than simply making money. Once you reach the comfortable stage (knowing that you're secure), you can be more interested in other pursuits. While making profits is nice, I know people who invest in companies because they believe in the potential of the product itself, or the vision of the company. The early days of Tesla is a good example of this where many people invested in the company even before profits became a likely return...

Sure, but if your business isn't making money, it's dead and the vast majority of businesses don't want that.

Deleted User wrote: »

In the case of Gillette, they gambled... and they lost. You can believe that it was an intentional strategy to simply generate news... but since Gillette were/are one of the primary companies in their marketspace, they didn't need that kind of publicity. They were already well known for quality (and expense). They sought to tap into another market, and believed that customer loyalty would prevent any kind of backlash. They were wrong.

But so what? So they were wrong. They couldn't have seen that when they started that ad campaign. But that still doesn't eliminate why they chose that particular angle in the first place. They weren't using woke politics because that was their heartfelt beliefs. They tapped into it because of its currency, which they though could be used for their own ends.

Deleted User wrote: »

Rupert Murdoch, built up a media empire with profit in mind, but over the last decade, has pushed that empire into promoting his own view of the world, supporting what he supports, and seeking to tear down what he doesn't. He has sacrificed profitability, in order to pursue his own political agenda(s).

The same can be said for other companies who have decided to wed themselves to particular political or social campaigns. Profit/money is not the only motivator anymore.

Now your talking about media empires, which are different to most businesses. Especially ones with a particular political slant. But even here, they'll jump on things and abandon others to play to a base and keep them in the game. CNN will chose a certain angle because they know it'll appeal to a certain demographic and Fox will chose a different one to feed their audience. But either will drop things that are no longer viable.

Watch Fox drop Trump like a hot shit in the coming month, after shilling for him for the last 5 years.

The same Fox News that was bleating on about the necessity of invading Iraq in 2003, were calling Hilary Clinton a warmonger in 2016.

Alongside ad agencies, the "values" of media companies aren't worth a damn.

Deleted User wrote: »

Once you've reached your profit expectations, what do you do next? Just make more money, or find ways to exercise the power that you have?

Profits go up and down.

Omackeral

Biker79 wrote: »

I never called on anyone to do anything.

I was referring to the post above that. The immediate one above that one.

Tony EH

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Any link to the actual article? I can't find it anywhere, just images like this. It's almost like it's not real.

It's fake. Popped on Reddit a few days ago.

Banana Republic 1

Tony EH wrote: »

Nothing above is counter to what I've said, so I'm not sure why you spent time typing it.

Sure optics are important to businesses, especially nowadays and some will tout their "values" to their base (and therefore make money). But values change and with businesses they'd change in a heartbeat if they weren't working.

Some businesses won't work with other businesses because it's bad for business. Mars stopped allowing their ads on YouTube because of certain videos, for instance. But that had fuck all to do with their morals and more to do with their fear of being associated with "undesirable" YouTube opinion merchants.



Sure, but if your business isn't making money, it's dead and the vast majority of businesses don't want that.



But so what? So they were wrong. They couldn't have seen that when they started that ad campaign. But that still doesn't eliminate why they chose that particular angle in the first place. They weren't using woke politics because that was their heartfelt beliefs. They tapped into it because of its currency, which they though could be used for their own ends.



Now your talking about media empires, which are different to most businesses. Especially ones with a particular political slant. But even here, they'll jump on things and abandon others to play to a base and keep them in the game. CNN will chose a certain angle because they know it'll appeal to a certain demographic and Fox will chose a different one to feed their audience. But either will drop things that are no longer viable.

Watch Fox drop Trump like a hot shit in the coming month, after shilling for him for the last 5 years.

The same Fox News that was bleating on about the necessity of invading Iraq in 2003, were calling Hilary Clinton a warmonger in 2016.

Alongside ad agencies, the "values" of media companies aren't worth a damn.



Profits go up and down.

All media jump on bandwagons ride them into the ground and leap off before the horses collapse.

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

Where do you see outrage in my post? Any cursing, bitching, moaning? Ahh.. my use of bloody hell signifies outrage to you? Wow.. people really have become sensitive if that's the case.



Err.. nobody here moves in the same circles as me.. except for one other person, who hasn't posted in quite some time. Where are you getting this junk from?



But you do. congratulations. :rolleyes:

ok - think this needs a little bit of calm. I was just pointing out that people in general need to stop getting outraged over articles on the internet - particularly the fake ones like this one obviously is.

I just happened to quote your post because you also appeared to buy it as well.

I don't give a fu(k what language you use.

Quantum Erasure

biko wrote: »

Baizuo, stop drinking coffee.
...

Wait till they find out about chocolate....

Banana Republic 1

km991148 wrote: »

ok - think this needs a little bit of calm. I was just pointing out that people in general need to stop getting outraged over articles on the internet - particularly the fake ones like this one obviously is.

I just happened to quote your post because you also appeared to buy it as well.

I don't give a fu(k what language you use.

The best way to not outrage someone on boards is to not post.

km991148

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

The best way to not outrage someone on boards is to not post.

I'm confused, I don't think I'm outraged?? :pac:

I'm laughing at the way fake articles spread. It's funny. It's AH. People need to lighten up.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

Nothing above is counter to what I've said, so I'm not sure why you spent time typing it.

Sure optics are important to businesses, especially nowadays and some will tout their "values" to their base (and therefore make money). But values change and with businesses they'd change in a heartbeat if they weren't working.

Some businesses won't work with other businesses because it's bad for business. Mars stopped allowing their ads on YouTube because of certain videos, for instance. But that had fuck all to do with their morals and more to do with their fear of being associated with "undesirable" YouTube opinion merchants.

It relates because you believe that profit is the only driver behind what a company does. That's not the case. Hence why I wrote all that out. Obviously, you missed my point.

Sure, but if your business isn't making money, it's dead and the vast majority of businesses don't want that.

Not my point, since I was referring to the shareholders/investors.

But so what? So they were wrong. They couldn't have seen that when they started that ad campaign. But that still doesn't eliminate why they chose that particular angle in the first place. They weren't using woke politics because that was their heartfelt beliefs. They tapped into it because of its currency, which they though could be used for their own ends.

They tapped into it because those involved thought that the market of woke people would make it worthwhile. They were wrong. I didn't disagree that money was a driver, but they felt that promoting a woke message was important too.. the people employed in those departments. I'd imagine those people have been shifted to other departments or fired since then.

Now your talking about media empires, which are different to most businesses. Especially ones with a particular political slant. But even here, they'll jump on things and abandon others to play to a base and keep them in the game. CNN will chose a certain angle because they know it'll appeal to a certain demographic and Fox will chose a different one to feed their audience. But either will drop things that are no longer viable.

You spoke of business, of which media companies are. Companies concerned with profits, just as much as other companies, but still aim to promote their own viewpoint of the world, or manipulate their viewers.

In any case, I can see we're not reaching each other with our points. Let's just simply agree to disagree here.

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Wait till they find out about chocolate....

On that note....

https://news.sky.com/story/waitrose-apologises-for-selling-racist-chocolate-ducklings-after-criticism-11688611

Waitrose has apologised for selling a dark chocolate Easter duckling that was labelled as "ugly" after suggestions it was racist.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

ok - think this needs a little bit of calm. I was just pointing out that people in general need to stop getting outraged over articles on the internet - particularly the fake ones like this one obviously is.

I just happened to quote your post because you also appeared to buy it as well.

I don't give a fu(k what language you use.

I think people need to stop assigning the word "outrage" or "triggered" or whatever other word to posts when it's obviously not the case.

There's a trend on the internet these days to push others into anger by claiming that they're outraged or some other nonsense. It's fine when people make clearly emotional, or angry posts.. but that's not the case here.

As for what I bought or didn't buy... you pulled it out of thin air.

biko

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Any link to the actual article? I can't find it anywhere, just images like this. It's almost like it's not real.

You may be right, I did some searching and did not find an actual article.

I'll update my original post, thanks for pointing it out.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

They tapped into it because those involved thought that the market of woke people would make it worthwhile. They were wrong. I didn't disagree that money was a driver, but they felt that promoting a woke message was important too.. the people employed in those departments. I'd imagine those people have been shifted to other departments or fired since then.

It's important as a means to an end and that end is making money, because they had been losing money year on year before hand. There may have been individuals who were full on for that campaign's (confused) message. But the company, as a whole? No. It was just another angle.

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's just simply agree to disagree here.

Yep.

Quantum Erasure

The Cultural Appropriation of the Chocolate Chip Cookie

https://medium.com/@nevaer1/the-cultural-appropriation-of-the-chocolate-chip-cookie-60e63a0011f

km991148

Deleted User wrote: »

I think people need to stop assigning the word "outrage" or "triggered" or whatever other word to posts when it's obviously not the case.

There's a trend on the internet these days to push others into anger by claiming that they're outraged or some other nonsense. It's fine when people make clearly emotional, or angry posts.. but that's not the case here.

As for what I bought or didn't buy... you pulled it out of thin air.

Alright - sorry - not trying to trigger anyone by saying 'outrage'. It was the original poster that I was laughing at mainly, they went and copied the image onto boards without even checking if there was an article (there isn't).

But you did seem to take the picture at face value, when it seemed obviously fake. If I got that wrong, then I am sorry and please let me know what you meant.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

But you did seem to take the picture at face value, when it seemed obviously fake. If I got that wrong, then I am sorry and please let me know what you meant.

I was bemused at the idea of it... didn't matter whether it was real or not. There wasn't any outrage or shock involved.

I'm well past that point at this stage of the thread. Just simple bemusement now.