I'm still a little puzzled at why so many here are ageeeable to receiving moral instruction from the market. It could just as easily be the makers of detergent as Gillette - or Mark Zuckerberg. Do we really buy high-minded exhortations to social responsibility from Gordon Gecko and his "greed is good" brigade?
Armstronglivs wrote:
I'm still a little puzzled at why so many here are ageeeable to receiving moral instruction from the market. It could just as easily be the makers of detergent as Gillette - or Mark Zuckerberg. Do we really buy high-minded exhortations to social responsibility from Gordon Gecko and his "greed is good" brigade?
Schick tagline from its website: “The Man I Am. The Shave I Want.”
Positive positioning for males without moralizing. Emphasis on the product.
After this ad, if a white, elitist liberal is in the hood(campaigning or saving lives), and sees a young black father leaving his family for a life of crime and drugs, they will step in and correct this behavior?
White educated types of the liberal persuasion DON'T go into the hood idiot.
Trying again for the umpteenth time wrote wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I'm still a little puzzled at why so many here are ageeeable to receiving moral instruction from the market. It could just as easily be the makers of detergent as Gillette - or Mark Zuckerberg. Do we really buy high-minded exhortations to social responsibility from Gordon Gecko and his "greed is good" brigade?
Schick tagline from its website: “The Man I Am. The Shave I Want.”
Positive positioning for males without moralizing. Emphasis on the product.
If there is no moral message in the ad then there is nothing to debate. Of course, the product is what matters - to Gillette.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I'm still a little puzzled at why so many here are ageeeable to receiving moral instruction from the market. It could just as easily be the makers of detergent as Gillette - or Mark Zuckerberg. Do we really buy high-minded exhortations to social responsibility from Gordon Gecko and his "greed is good" brigade?
Bruh, just in case you missed the memo per Mitt Romney and SCOTUS Citizens United ruling—“Corporations are people...my friend”. Thus, they have the same rights as you and the various denominations of Christianity to “virtue signal”.
SCOTUS Citizens United. Splain it brah.
Um, ever heard of......... wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I'm still a little puzzled at why so many here are ageeeable to receiving moral instruction from the market. It could just as easily be the makers of detergent as Gillette - or Mark Zuckerberg. Do we really buy high-minded exhortations to social responsibility from Gordon Gecko and his "greed is good" brigade?
Bruh, just in case you missed the memo per Mitt Romney and SCOTUS Citizens United ruling—“Corporations are people...my friend”. Thus, they have the same rights as you and the various denominations of Christianity to “virtue signal”.
Of course they do, because it's as American as apple-pie that money is everything, and big money even more so.
Never had heard of wrote:
SCOTUS Citizens United. Splain it brah.
Here ya’ go brah....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FECTo paraphrase, corporations and PACs have first amendment rights. Brah, the decision mainly had to do with the concept that campaign contributions = free speech and corporations have free speech right protected under 1A. But, as bruh above accurately points out, those who agree with such a decision must agree that virtue signaling via ads/marketing pieces are also covered under 1A for corporations.
This is what you get when a true human piece of sh!t responds. "women, betas and gays." Dude, seriously, follow the Egard ad and join one of the many brave 80% of male suicide victims. Or choose to be a better human being.
A brah’s bruh.... wrote:
Never had heard of wrote:
SCOTUS Citizens United. Splain it brah.
Here ya’ go brah....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FECTo paraphrase, corporations and PACs have first amendment rights. Brah, the decision mainly had to do with the concept that campaign contributions = free speech and corporations have free speech right protected under 1A. But, as bruh above accurately points out, those who agree with such a decision must agree that virtue signaling via ads/marketing pieces are also covered under 1A for corporations.
You miss the point. The issue here is not whether a corporation has legal rights of the kind you describe - that is not contested, bruh - but whether a body dedicated first and foremost to its own pecuniary well-being can take on the role of being a credible agent of social and moral improvement in others. Above all, in its customers. If you'll buy that you'll buy anything. Bruh.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I'm still a little puzzled at why so many here are ageeeable to receiving moral instruction from the market. It could just as easily be the makers of detergent as Gillette - or Mark Zuckerberg. Do we really buy high-minded exhortations to social responsibility from Gordon Gecko and his "greed is good" brigade?
I am a bit puzzled why you, or anyone else, would give a sh!t what Gillette has to say on this "issue".
They ran an ad. Who gives a sh!t? People are upset about the ad? Seriously? WTF is wrong with folks?
Armstronglivs wrote:
You miss the point. The issue here is not whether a corporation has legal rights of the kind you describe - that is not contested, bruh - but whether a body dedicated first and foremost to its own pecuniary well-being can take on the role of being a credible agent of social and moral improvement in others. Above all, in its customers. If you'll buy that you'll buy anything. Bruh.
No, that really isn't of any interest. Of more interest is why anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, would spend even 1 second concerning themselves with the "message" of said corporation.
StrongArms wrote:
I am a bit puzzled why you, or anyone else, would give a sh!t what Gillette has to say on this "issue".
They ran an ad. Who gives a sh!t? People are upset about the ad? Seriously? WTF is wrong with folks?
+ 1,000,000,000
+ 1,000,000,000 wrote:
StrongArms wrote:
I am a bit puzzled why you, or anyone else, would give a sh!t what Gillette has to say on this "issue".
They ran an ad. Who gives a sh!t? People are upset about the ad? Seriously? WTF is wrong with folks?
+ 1,000,000,000
-1
logicc wrote:
+ 1,000,000,000 wrote:
+ 1,000,000,000
-1
OK then, + 999,999,999
You have, or you wouldn't have bothered offering your otherwise empty comment. You clearly haven't read the previous 20 threads either, Yoda.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You have, or you wouldn't have bothered offering your otherwise empty comment. You clearly haven't read the previous 20 threads either, Yoda.
I am a bit puzzled why you, or anyone else, would give a sh!t what Gillette has to say on this "issue".
They ran an ad. Who gives a sh!t? People are upset about the ad? Seriously? WTF is wrong with folks?
Tee Hee
StrongArms wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You have, or you wouldn't have bothered offering your otherwise empty comment. You clearly haven't read the previous 20 threads either, Yoda.
I am a bit puzzled why you, or anyone else, would give a sh!t what Gillette has to say on this "issue".
They ran an ad. Who gives a sh!t? People are upset about the ad? Seriously? WTF is wrong with folks?
Tee Hee
You're obviously the kind of guy who wouldn't notice when an ad was sexist towards women - which they typically have been over the years - or give a sh*t about that. Or cared if terms were used like "sambo", as they once were. Negative gender stereotyping - even if it applies in this case to males - clearly has too many syllables for you. Put your head back in the sand.
Oh, this thread is still going? Lotta people seem to have had their feelings hurt over a message of not bullying and not disrespecting women. Bunch of snowflakes creeping around this place, getting your feelings hurt so easily.