You wouldnt get it. Its "implied".Careful where you are pointing your projections.
Implied? Im out.
The message was a mixture of signaling and pathos to get men to be better people. You are absolutely right that in a sense the ad was also for women. Considering the role women play in buying products, they were targets. The message though was directed at men.
That's some mighty fine side-shifting. Do you somehow imagine they didn't consider how the ad would play with women?
Just because the ad was about men doesn't mean they were the only audience that P&G was trying to reach. It's kinda like saying that ads about pets target pets & not their people.
You see, telling people that they can do better hurts some people's feels. And for those some people, their feels are just so delicate and precious... they just can't get over it unless everyone agrees not to hurt their feels again.
What in the world? I know we all look for moral guidance from giant corporations so this is always welcome. And this is somehing that is completely relevant to their product, shaving and sexual harassment go hand in hand so it only makes sense. It’s obviously a calculated move to capitalize on #metoo but do people legitimately buy this? Nike at least had a history of not just child labor but also the idea of pushing oneself/making sacrifices/all that kind of stuff so it wasn’t so far out of left field. Gillette?
The message is the message, I agree a lot of men still to this day don’t treat women as equals. Not all certainly, but enough that it’s still a very relevant issue in the world. But thanks Gillette for virtue signaling that to me? I’ll be sure to buy your overpriced products now. Moralizing and virtue signaling as a marketing tool on something irrelevant to the product you’re selling. #sobrave
I'm guessing that the people most likely to be offended by a TV commercial with a positive message are probably the same people who are most likely to be in need of listening to that positive message.Facts don't care about your feelings eh? I'm guessing you are not the type to use preferred gender pronouns.
I'm guessing that the people most likely to be offended by a TV commercial with a positive message are probably the same people who are most likely to be in need of listening to that positive message.
Hehe, aren't you making the assumption that the OP was worked up about a particular Gillette commercial when his expressed concern was about the notion of corporations advertizing morality and the social implications of that? So, in my opinion you see him as sooo worked up about an issue he wasn't worked up about at all, and by doing so you worked yourself up. So there is no solution to the problem, if there is one or more, with corporations becoming involved in virtue signaling, in not buying their product or turning off the ad. Talking about the ad is a jumping off point to a broader and more complex issue.
It seems to me then, that this recent, 2014 notion of internet public shaming that is becoming rooted in the radical left, is causing the radical left to become triggered whenever their shaming or virtue signaling is even held up to tentative questioning. Who here is really being triggered? I am perfectly comfortable to enter this fray as a person who is triggered by authoritariansm of the left or the right. Either form, in my opinion, is monsterous and dangerous insanity.
I am triggered and I said why. The fact that this has a long history and the OP may have been triggered now only recently and because of metoo does not make the more philosophical implications inherent in the moral signaling via advertising go away. I am triggered when I feel a real moral question that merits some real and deep critical thought is shouted down just because the person who brings it up might belong to a group you, in your really suspect infinite moral certainty, deem also to be worthy of moral shaming.I think its an inherent logical conclusion reviewing advertising history as well as UCs posting history. Morality in advertising has been a thing well before Barbie and Ken yet, for UC to get concerned it had to have a grain of #metoo in it.
I think you are the one triggered ... for some god forsaken reason.
Thank God you didn’t get triggered. I still remember the moment when, playing back a conversation in my head with a therapist I was seeing and recalling and realizing what I had said when he told me I was defensive. Yup, I said I am not defensive. Love you. Be of good cheer!Meh!..I could care less if you think I'm "triggered", "signaled", "radical leftist" "radical rightist" or whatever other buzzwords/labels you want to apply. Obviously this company felt the message in this ad was something they wanted to portray. There is no "problem". If a bunch of overly sensitive culture war/SJW types are going to have their feelings hurt...they can stop buying the product in this ad. I'm sure the majority of the men who feel this product is effective and regularly buy this product will not stop using it because of a this "message". So..Carry on with this "debate' to nowhere
A fellow on the radio the other day pointed out that every man that ran out of the amphibious assault vehicles on Omaha beach suffered from toxic masculinity. I thought it was an interesting observation.
A fellow on the radio the other day pointed out that every man that ran out of the amphibious assault vehicles on Omaha beach suffered from toxic masculinity. I thought it was an interesting observation.
You thought it was an interesting observation that he equated the heroes at Omaha with rapists and wife beaters?A fellow on the radio the other day pointed out that every man that ran out of the amphibious assault vehicles on Omaha beach suffered from toxic masculinity. I thought it was an interesting observation.
It's a main feature of "conservative" talk radio for the host to intentionally create the most ridiculously obtuse straw men to use as a talking point against liberal arguments. It seems like the more idiotic the straw man, the more it misses the entire point of the public discussion being had, the better then that conservatives can chuckle about those 'stupid liberals.'No, it's a rather stupid observation that demeans and devalues what those people did.
But wouldn’t that be exactly what you would do if you equate masculine and toxic?You thought it was an interesting observation that he equated the heroes at Omaha with rapists and wife beaters?
It's a main feature of "conservative" talk radio for the host to intentionally create the most ridiculously obtuse straw men to use as a talking point against liberal arguments. It seems like the more idiotic the straw man, the more it misses the entire point of the public discussion being had, the better then that conservatives can chuckle about those 'stupid liberals.'
I don't equate masculine with toxic. That would be just as unfair and bigoted as equating feminism with toxic.But wouldn’t that be exactly what you would do if you equate masculine and toxic?