Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

ligerdub · 20-01-2019 10:19PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually my point about middle aged white man was that things are changing for younger generations.

As for the rest I don't reply to posts the lenght of a novel, try to be more concise next time. (I have a life.)

Translation: "I got nothing, but I'll try and deflect from that by suggesting I'm not responding because my life is so enriching and busy and attempt to insult the person I can't argue against, who posts far far less frequently on this forum than I do."

I'm sorry that a the equivalent of 1.5 pages in microsoft word is too much for you to process, that isn't my fault. Pretty short story that!

And no it wasn't by the way: "Actually my point about middle aged white man was that things are changing for younger generations." Perhaps you should be clearer.

nullzero · 20-01-2019 10:46PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Why is everyone shocked that a corporation is advertising with the intent of profiting from it. And that one particular message does not align with their practices if you look in any way closely at them.

That is what they do.

The message in the ad is about promoting a good example. Why is that a bad thing?
People seem to be too caught up in thinking (mistakenly) that it is implying that all men are bad instead of just considering this message.

The ad implies that men need to be instructed to do the right thing. Well I'm sorry but plenty of us have been doing the right thing our entire lives and don't take kindly to being in anyway associated with the actions of a very small cohort of the male population. We're not infallible, but we're not deserving of the kind of condescending claptrap either.

Tell me how · 20-01-2019 10:48PM

nullzero wrote: »

The ad implies that men need to be instructed to do the right thing. Well I'm sorry but plenty of us have been doing the right thing our entire lives and don't take kindly to being in anyway associated with the actions of a very small cohort of the male population. We're not infallible, but we're not deserving of the kind of condescending claptrap either.

All Ads instruct the viewer to do something or think something.
That is what they do.

Why do you not view this ad as instructing men to act to intervene when that small cohort is acting inappropriately rather than seeing it as implying that you are a member of the cohort.

ligerdub · 20-01-2019 10:49PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Why is everyone shocked that a corporation is advertising with the intent of profiting from it. And that one particular message does not align with their practices if you look in any way closely at them.

That is what they do.

The message in the ad is about promoting a good example. Why is that a bad thing?
People seem to be too caught up in thinking (mistakenly) that it is implying that all men are bad instead of just considering this message.

Nobody is shocked that a corporation is advertising with the intent of profiting, my point is that this particular campaign is a pretty stupid way to try and make money. Even if it does work for now (it won't), is that a good long-term way to stay profitable? I don't think it is. They run the risk of boycotts (reasonably so) due to either a sloppy unclear delivery of why this isn't anti-male, or because it's a genuinely vindictive ad campaign designed to promote poor behaviour of men and that Gillette need to tell them how to behave.

Even if they were right (they aren't), who the hell are Gillette to dictate terms on what's right and wrong? They are a subsidiary company of a predominantly health and beauty conglomerate, they specialise in making razor blades. I'll defer to other parties on that score to be honest. I know full well that marketing campaigns aren't simplistic "Company X is great, go buy it" in nature, and that there is the idea of buyers aligning themselves to positive brand qualities, but when a negative is introduced you run the risk of losing more customers than you keep or gain.

The message in the ad is not about promoting a good example. Funnily enough the old ads did that more than this one did.

I'll leave it at that before bringing this discussion too far off-topic.

Tell me how · 20-01-2019 10:52PM

ligerdub wrote: »

Nobody is shocked that a corporation is advertising with the intent of profiting, my point is that this particular campaign is a pretty stupid way to try and make money. Even if it does work for now (it won't), is that a good long-term way to stay profitable? I don't think it is. They run the risk of boycotts (reasonably so) due to

Even if they were right (they aren't), who the hell are Gillette to dictate terms on what's right and wrong? They are a subsidiary company of a predominantly health and beauty conglomerate, they specialise in making razor blades. I'll defer to other parties on that score to be honest. I know full well that marketing campaigns aren't simplistic "Company X is great, go buy it" in nature, and that there is the idea of buyers aligning themselves to positive brand qualities, when a negative is introduced you run the risk of losing more customers than you keep or gain.

The message in the ad is not about promoting a good example. Funnily enough the old ads did that more than this one did.

I'll leave it at that before bringing this discussion too far off-topic.

Every company does this.

The car manufacturers talking about helping the environment while still trying to push diesel vehicles.
Other corporations promoting healthy living while owning tobacco companies.

The outrage over this is because some men are choosing to feel challenged.
I say choosing, because I do not think the message was that all men are bad.

nullzero · 20-01-2019 10:56PM

Tell me how wrote: »

All Ads instruct the viewer to do something or think something.
That is what they do.

Why do you not view this ad as instructing men to act to intervene when that small cohort is acting inappropriately rather than seeing it as implying that you are a member of the cohort.

It pushes sexual assault to the fore of the ad, it implies that all men have a responsibility to stop such things happening, which implies that if you're not talking about how wrong sexual assault is you could be partially responsible for a sexual assault that may be carried out by someone you have met in the future.
How often should we remind each other of the immorality of sexual assault? Twice a day? Every second Wednesday?
We all know that sexual assault is wrong, as do the men who carry them out, they make the choice to carry out sexual assaults, it isn't the fault of other men.

Tell me how · 20-01-2019 10:58PM

nullzero wrote: »

It pushes sexual assault to the fore of the ad, it implies that all men have a responsibility to stop such things happening, which implies that if you're not talking about how wrong sexual assault is you could be partially responsible for a sexual assault that may be carried out by someone you have met in the future.
How often should we remind each other of the immorality of sexual assault? Twice a day? Every second Wednesday?
We all know that sexual assault is wrong, as do the men who carry them out, they make the choice to carry out sexual assaults, it isn't the fault of other men.

It implies men that they have the opportunity to stop such events happening should you see them occurring. That's it.

Also, maybe you saw a different ad but I didn't see sexual assault to the fore of the one I watched.

nullzero · 20-01-2019 11:01PM

Tell me how wrote: »

It implies men that they have the opportunity to stop such events happening should you see them occurring. That's it.

Also, maybe you saw a different ad but I didn't see sexual assault to the fore of the one I watched.

From what you're saying I can only assume you didn't watch the ad very closely as the theme of sexual assault was obvious, and not in anyway a hidden theme. Is it possible that you are being deliberately obtuse?

Eric Cartman · 20-01-2019 11:01PM

nullzero wrote: »

It pushes sexual assault to the fore of the ad, it implies that all men have a responsibility to stop such things happening, which implies that if you're not talking about how wrong sexual assault is you could be partially responsible for a sexual assault that may be carried out by someone you have met in the future.
How often should we remind each other of the immorality of sexual assault? Twice a day? Every second Wednesday?
We all know that sexual assault is wrong, as do the men who carry them out, they make the choice to carry out sexual assaults, it isn't the fault of other men.

Theres also a weird coincidence or implication in the video , every man who is 'calling out' / stopping an evil man from doing man things is black, with the exception of one man at the end standing up to bullying, every black man in the video is painted as good / moral and all of the 'sins' of men are projected by white men.

ligerdub · 20-01-2019 11:03PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Every company does this.

The car manufacturers talking about helping the environment while still trying to push diesel vehicles.
Other corporations promoting healthy living while owning tobacco companies.

The outrage over this is because some men are choosing to feel challenged.
I say choosing, because I do not think the message was that all men are bad.

Yes, you see the car manufacturer there is trying to get the buyer to get into the mindset of "they are an Ethical company, I'm an ethical buyer". Tick box, fine.

The car manufacturer isn't going around calling people who don't use efficient cars scumbags and how it's unacceptable to drive anything other than a hybrid. "The generation before you were selfish with their big engines and dirty exhausts (probably made by us too), and they didn't feel bad about it either." There's a difference, a pretty bloody big difference!

The outrage over this is because a lot of men (and many, many women too I might add) are correctly viewing this as an attack on perceived male behaviour, that this behaviour was completely unacceptable, and that men as a group were perfectly ok with this deal.

I might also add that there were quite a few things within the ad which were not even positives.

That's truly the end from me anyway. Godspeed.

Tell me how · 20-01-2019 11:04PM

nullzero wrote: »

From what you're saying I can only assume you didn't watch the ad very closely as the theme of sexual assault was obvious, and not in anyway a hidden theme. Is it possible that you are being deliberately obtuse?

Yes sexual assault was in the ad. So too was bullying, fighting, condescension and to the fore of the ad was setting a positive example.

thecretinhop · 20-01-2019 11:08PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually my point about middle aged white man was that things are changing for younger generations.

As for the rest I don't reply to posts the lenght of a novel, try to be more concise next time. (I have a life.)

(translation: i have been schooled by facts therfore i wont interact)

nullzero · 20-01-2019 11:17PM

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes sexual assault was in the ad. So too was bullying, fighting, condescension and to the fore of the ad was setting a positive example.

There can be more than one thing in the foreground. I think you've read it wrong although we'll never agree.

meeeeh · 20-01-2019 11:46PM

thecretinhop wrote: »

(translation: i have been schooled by facts therfore i wont interact)

Don't delude yourself. You can go through my whole posting history and you will see I don't respond to long posts or at least not more than one point made by it. Reading long posts on people I know nothing about and without good reference is a waste of time. I skimmed the post, it threw out some stats about Asians (which Asians btw, Siberia, Kazakhstan, China, India, Arabs or all of them) without actual source of the static and a rant about the ad I said I didn't like. I didn't like it because it's precisely the type of an ad women used to be fed for decades. It took more than one for women to be up in arms.

nullzero · 20-01-2019 11:56PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Don't delude yourself. You can go through my whole posting history and you will see I don't respond to long posts or at least not more than one point made by it. Reading long posts on people I know nothing about and without good reference is a waste of time. I skimmed the post, it threw out some stats about Asians (which Asians btw, Siberia, Kazakhstan, China, India, Arabs or all of them) without actual source of the static and a rant about the ad I said I didn't like. I didn't like it because it's precisely the type of an ad women used to be fed for decades. It took more than one for women to be up in arms.

Having a history of not reading posts because of their length doesn't make it right.
If you're going to engage in discussion it's only right that you should give the same amount of attention to each post, particularly when you reply to it.

meeeeh · 21-01-2019 12:05AM

nullzero wrote: »

Having a history of not reading posts because of their length doesn't make it right.
If you're going to engage in discussion it's only right that you should give the same amount of attention to each post, particularly when you reply to it.

I replied as much as post deserved.

givyjoe · 21-01-2019 12:56AM

meeeeh wrote: »

I replied as much as post deserved.

Jesus , stop digging.

dominatinMC · 21-01-2019 01:04AM

meeeeh wrote: »

I replied as much as post deserved.

This is bloody tragic. At least Ciara is back tomorrow, so normal service should resume! :pac:

jeremyj1968 · 21-01-2019 09:17AM

Hey, this is fun. Somebody put together the Toxic Femininity version of the Gillette ad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X94TPrzWsI

While it is tongue in cheek to some extent, it certainly demonstrates that it is possible to portray either sex as terrible by putting a focus on the terrible behaviours of a few. The question is if it is fair assessment, or are Gillette simply jumping on board a SJW bandwagon. I think it is the latter. Be very interesting to see how much damage it does to their sales.

meeeeh · 21-01-2019 10:31AM

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Hey, this is fun. Somebody put together the Toxic Femininity version of the Gillette ad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X94TPrzWsI

While it is tongue in cheek to some extent, it certainly demonstrates that it is possible to portray either sex as terrible by putting a focus on the terrible behaviours of a few.

What bit is tounge in cheek?

Tell me how · 21-01-2019 10:34AM

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Hey, this is fun. Somebody put together the Toxic Femininity version of the Gillette ad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X94TPrzWsI

While it is tongue in cheek to some extent, it certainly demonstrates that it is possible to portray either sex as terrible by putting a focus on the terrible behaviours of a few. The question is if it is fair assessment, or are Gillette simply jumping on board a SJW bandwagon. I think it is the latter. Be very interesting to see how much damage it does to their sales.

That's laughable, in a kind of 'bless them, they tried' manner. The computer generated voice? They actually went to the effort of producing evidence to demonstrate that they missed the point.

Most curious thing about the Gillette ad experience is that many who are freaking out on behalf of men have spent the last couple of years laughing at "easily triggered snowflakes"

nullzero · 21-01-2019 10:45AM

meeeeh wrote: »

What bit is tounge in cheek?

TLDR.

The Bishop Basher · 21-01-2019 10:56AM

Tell me how wrote: »

That's laughable, in a kind of 'bless them, they tried' manner. The computer generated voice? They actually went to the effort of producing evidence to demonstrate that they missed the point.

There’s only one person missing the point..

The computer generated voice was for a reason but I’m guessing that also flew right over your head.

Bless them indeed..

meeeeh · 21-01-2019 11:01AM

Tell me how wrote: »

That's laughable, in a kind of 'bless them, they tried' manner. The computer generated voice? They actually went to the effort of producing evidence to demonstrate that they missed the point.

Most curious thing about the Gillette ad experience is that many who are freaking out on behalf of men have spent the last couple of years laughing at "easily triggered snowflakes"

What I find interesting is that I heard Friday show a bit. Both perspectives were discussed, I didn't overly think it was skewed in favour of the ad and there is pages of whinging of just how hard done (some) men are. The thread in AH obviously isn't enough to convey the pain.

I also noticed nobody commented on the caller who was attacked on all forms of her social media, her details were made public and so on just because someone couldn't deal with the fact she has an opinion. The funny thing is they displayed exactly the attitudes the ad talks about. But I guess that doesn't matter.

Btw my husband didn't like the ad, her he managed to get over it in about 30 seconds. I like strong men.

Tell me how · 21-01-2019 11:16AM

There seems to be a strong correlation between those who post here about how bad CK and those who are offended by the ad.

But no, they definitely don't hate CK (or judge her differently) just because she is a woman. No way. Definitely no evidence of that.

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 11:51AM

nullzero wrote: »

The ad implies that men need to be instructed to do the right thing. Well I'm sorry but plenty of us have been doing the right thing our entire lives and don't take kindly to being in anyway associated with the actions of a very small cohort of the male population. We're not infallible, but we're not deserving of the kind of condescending claptrap either.

If you subjectively believed that the ad was targeted at you, then I suggest they were right on the money.

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 12:00PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If you subjectively believed that the ad was targeted at you, then I suggest they were right on the money.

And conversely the same applies to the female version, a point lost on the Woke Ciara Kelly Fanclub.

ButtersSuki · 21-01-2019 12:06PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I have a rule that anyone mentioning feminists, snowflakes, mansplaining and similar nonsense is in an idiot.

Hmmmm.....

Tell me how wrote: »

snowflakes

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 12:10PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Hmmmm.....

Hi - quotation marks can be explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

FreudianSlippers · 21-01-2019 12:11PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

And conversely the same applies to the female version, a point lost on the Woke Ciara Kelly Fanclub.

What the **** does this even start to mean? Are you talking about that dumb video posted earlier in this thread? Did CK even discuss this on her show?

Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

Comments