One may have noticed not everyone has a problem with the Gillette ad.
Here are some examples pulled from Twitter:
And there are plenty of these out there including Reason's Robby Soave and an assortment of 'woke' men like Matt Powell I mentioned in a previous post and other consultants like him.
Quick take on that. Sometimes I wonder if outrage sells and corporations understand how manipulating consumers pays off.
Nonetheless, there's a school of thought out there that argues if companies don't get involved and pick a side, they'll lose a consumer looking more and more to align with companies for purchases with their own values.
Personally, I think this is foolish. And we're seeing how foolish it can be. People in positions of influence peddling and consenting to this 'faux righteous' crap are the equivalent of historical propagandists of the past. 'What's the problem? This is necessary and if you won't consent you will lose and are part of the problem'.
To me, this kind of interpretation and acceptance of the ad is abhorrent.
The entire premise of the ad was 'toxic masculinity' as if it's an actual thing. But in reality, it's just a made up term with no real definition or hard data to back it up. It's a vague term that is neither here or there. It only makes sense to far left ideologues and the army of useful idiots who buy into critical theory nonsense.
The ones acting like 'what's the big deal' do actually make me wonder about their own manhood and how they perceive the world.
I do not see the ad as make a plea for men to 'do better' because the premise is indeed not enough men do right by according to the standards of the feminist who put this ad together. You have to be some kind of fool not to see a problem with Ana Kasparian's appearance in this. She's the last person I'd take advice from. TYT, in my view, are morally and intellectually deficient. So excuse me if I see a huge problem with Gillette fricken using her. She has to first improve her own image and vulgar and arrogant behaviour.
Again. It's a razor ad for men. What the heck does she have to do with razors?
The problem with the ad is it once and for all puts out there a logical fallacy called 'Kafkarapping' (see Tweets above). More about Kaftatrapping here.
****
I think it applies here in this discussion particularly directed at those who claim 'those who have a problem with the ad, are part of the problem' and are 'probably guilty'. Or ask, 'why did this video get so much hate?"
The corruption comes by way of control. Go back to the consultants. Of course they want you to submit to their perspectives. It permits them to control the narrative that indirectly controls people's behaviours.
****
This tactics is popular among "progressives". More like totalitarians at this point but anyway....The way it works is, and you've probably seen a lot of it without realizing it, they accuse a person of something they can't possibly defend themselves against.
For example, a negative like 'you're racist' or 'you're a Nazi'. The standard by which they make this accusation is lowered. So, in this way, you can make a legitimate assertion about, say, 'black on black crime' but it will be shut down as racist. More over, if someone would to concede this (highly unlikely) it would be blamed on some other vague and unprovable concept like 'white privilege'.
In this way it's very easy to accuse Trump, in the absence of actual proof, he's an anti-semite (magically, given his family is Jewish and his stance on Israel), or a racist. It comes in the assertion of 'dog whistles' like 'there were good people on both sides' and, in the case of his alleged misogyny "they let you grab them by the pussy'. Each, of course, without the respect of consulting the context to which they were said.
It's the worst kind of sophistry imaginable because it cuts right through the essence of a person's soul without a shred of evidence except for the bullet of another's perception all too willing to misrepresent you. The amount of logical fallacies since Trump's election leaves one spinning in dismay and shock at the stupidity of it all.
A form of Kafkatrpping is on display, I think, with the Gillette Ad. 'If you have a problem with the ad, then you're part of the problem'. As if no credible and valid argument can be constructed and mounted against the ad. Never mind the impossibility of even rebutting the charge. A person that says this is already signalling they're not willing to argue in good faith. The truth - their version thereof - is in the assertion.
This is what makes the ad - and the people who defend it - well, toxic.
Men are toxic. They need to do better. And if you challenge the two points, you're toxic.
No one thinks men are perfect but the ad failed to convey any compelling argument that men don't always strive to 'do better'.
The message, ergo, is bad. Not good. It's inherently dishonest and people where their moral and intellectual compass is properly calibrated saw right through it. Nothing comes good of a faulty premise.
Something the left has excelled at for over 100 years without much resistance.
*****
It's worth noting I'm hardly one for boycotts or hysterics. I even found the ad to be amusing in its arrogant stupidity and ignorance. I pitied the people who put it together and I pitied the culture at Gillette (P&G) that thought good of it (we meant good!) and I pity the 'cucks' (The 'My wife's boyfriend loves it!' joke encapsulates perfectly who the ad probably appealed to) who defend it.
*****
As noted here, why did Gillette choose the route they did?
And Gillette isn't fooling anyone - except fools - with this world salad of nonsense.
As noted up top, corporations are probably trying to protect themselves from losing out consumers. The latest rage is to 'go woke'.
If there's one thing I've learned in my life it's that consultants generally miss the mark. They over inflate the zeitgeist and take it to mean a permanent trend.
I remember in the 1990s when I was in university professors saying Japanese style business techniques were going to take over American practices (because they all were anti-American for the most part) and that we should learn Japanese because it was inevitable.
I see the same BS here with the calls to 'go woke' or else.
The other aspect I'd like to quickly mention is one way to gauge whether an ad succeeds is the reaction it gets. Some say any publicity is good publicity but that probably works better for celebrities. I suppose some unwanted negative publicity (eg Volkswagen emissions scandal) can have a limited impact at best. However, a commercial specifically created in a way meant to send a message but eliciting a negative reaction. Can mean many things including they failed in their mission.
We're seeing this with the Gillette ad. They had a specific goal in mind (however faulty it was in its original thought) and got a negative reaction. The pushback has been not 'we failed' (think Hilary and Democrats not accepting the results of the 2016 election choosing instead to blame everything else including the winner) and the market has spoken but to double down and challenge the integrity of those who had the temerity to object.
This is where I took huge issue with the response. I'm the problem for pointing out the obvious misrepresentations in the video? In this way, my entire blog post would be dismissed as 'trolling'.
No, it's not okay because you believe the message is good you get to manipulate the process. That's utter left-wing 'ends justifies the means' horseshit. Rather than challenge my 'male hood' for rebutting, how about you actually present an argument against the criticism?
You failed to convey the message. Blaming people who criticizing for not 'understanding' is paternalistic rubbish. If your message was done in good faith people will respond according. Gillette was not. They were virtue signalling and people mocked it.
My free advice? Stay clear of damn politics. Don't become that chapter in a business or history book titled, 'What did they get wrong?' or 'how could they have been so foolish?' Don't be a case study of what not to do.
I may delve into this further in the future but for now it's worth just putting this up on the radar. Know the source of this stuff like you should know the source of where all this SJW nonsense stems from. In the political realm, pay close attention to the 'new Democrats' in the DNC and play close attention to their past and rhetoric. It's pulling to the left - and not in a good way. Be informed.
I digress.
As usual, I just consider my personal opinion, read both sides and decide. Once more, the 'unwoke' are far more compelling in their interpretations and opinions.
To the simpleton, the message is about 'do better'. To more nuanced and sophisticated, the ideological message was all too clear.
I particularly liked this message from Egard watches. As I noted in another post, why not focus on the realities, positives and facts of what men face?
I may just purchase one of their watches soon enough:
Here are some examples pulled from Twitter:
More
I maintain the belief that anyone who is offended by being asked to behave with common human decency has to question their own ideology. The advert doesn’t state that all men act in this way—a lot of men seem to have taken it as a personal attack. I’m a man, it doesn’t bother me
More
Replying to @GQMagazine
I'm trying very hard not to incite you guys. The commercial is less about lumping you together and more about men calling out other men who behave badly. That's @Gillette only point. Geesh.
More
Can we be honest here, guys? Who came up with "Boys will be boys?" It wasn't women! Even though we are guilty of perpetuating that nonsense. Your silence makes you complicit.
Just another example here.And there are plenty of these out there including Reason's Robby Soave and an assortment of 'woke' men like Matt Powell I mentioned in a previous post and other consultants like him.
Quick take on that. Sometimes I wonder if outrage sells and corporations understand how manipulating consumers pays off.
Nonetheless, there's a school of thought out there that argues if companies don't get involved and pick a side, they'll lose a consumer looking more and more to align with companies for purchases with their own values.
Personally, I think this is foolish. And we're seeing how foolish it can be. People in positions of influence peddling and consenting to this 'faux righteous' crap are the equivalent of historical propagandists of the past. 'What's the problem? This is necessary and if you won't consent you will lose and are part of the problem'.
To me, this kind of interpretation and acceptance of the ad is abhorrent.
The entire premise of the ad was 'toxic masculinity' as if it's an actual thing. But in reality, it's just a made up term with no real definition or hard data to back it up. It's a vague term that is neither here or there. It only makes sense to far left ideologues and the army of useful idiots who buy into critical theory nonsense.
The ones acting like 'what's the big deal' do actually make me wonder about their own manhood and how they perceive the world.
I do not see the ad as make a plea for men to 'do better' because the premise is indeed not enough men do right by according to the standards of the feminist who put this ad together. You have to be some kind of fool not to see a problem with Ana Kasparian's appearance in this. She's the last person I'd take advice from. TYT, in my view, are morally and intellectually deficient. So excuse me if I see a huge problem with Gillette fricken using her. She has to first improve her own image and vulgar and arrogant behaviour.
Again. It's a razor ad for men. What the heck does she have to do with razors?
The problem with the ad is it once and for all puts out there a logical fallacy called 'Kafkarapping' (see Tweets above). More about Kaftatrapping here.
****
"....Sometimes the kafkatrap is presented in less direct forms. A common variant, which I’ll call the Model C, is to assert something like this: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have benefited from the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} behavior of others in the system.” The aim of the Model C is to induce the subject to self-condemnation not on the basis of anything the individual subject has actually done, but on the basis of choices by others which the subject typically had no power to affect. The subject must at all costs be prevented from noticing that it is not ultimately possible to be responsible for the behavior of other free human beings...."
"...The subject must be prevented from asserting his or her individuality and individual agency; better, the subject must be convinced that asserting individuality is yet another demonstration of denial and guilt. Need it be pointed out how ironic this is, given that kafkatrappers (other than old-fashioned religious authoritarians) generally claim to be against group stereotyping?"
"...There are, of course, other variants. Consider the model S: “Skepticism about any particular anecdotal account of {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression,…}, or any attempt to deny that the particular anecdote implies a systemic problem in which you are one of the guilty parties, is itself sufficient to establish your guilt.” Again, the common theme here is that questioning the discourse that condemns you, condemns you..."
"...Having shown how manipulative and psychologically abusive the kafkatrap is, it may seem almost superfluous to observe that it is logically fallacious as well. The particular species of fallacy is sometimes called “panchreston”, an argument from which anything can be deduced because it is not falsifiable."
"....I hope it is clear by now that the particular flavor of thoughtcrime alleged is irrelevant to understanding the operation of kafkatraps and how to avoid being abused and manipulated by kafkatrappers. In times past the kafkatrapper was usually a religious zealot; today, he or she is just as likely to be advancing an ideology of racial, gender, sexual-minority, or economic grievance. Whatever your opinion of any of these causes in their ‘pure’ forms may be, there are reasons that the employment of kafkatrapping is a sure sign of corruption."
I think it applies here in this discussion particularly directed at those who claim 'those who have a problem with the ad, are part of the problem' and are 'probably guilty'. Or ask, 'why did this video get so much hate?"
The corruption comes by way of control. Go back to the consultants. Of course they want you to submit to their perspectives. It permits them to control the narrative that indirectly controls people's behaviours.
****
This tactics is popular among "progressives". More like totalitarians at this point but anyway....The way it works is, and you've probably seen a lot of it without realizing it, they accuse a person of something they can't possibly defend themselves against.
For example, a negative like 'you're racist' or 'you're a Nazi'. The standard by which they make this accusation is lowered. So, in this way, you can make a legitimate assertion about, say, 'black on black crime' but it will be shut down as racist. More over, if someone would to concede this (highly unlikely) it would be blamed on some other vague and unprovable concept like 'white privilege'.
In this way it's very easy to accuse Trump, in the absence of actual proof, he's an anti-semite (magically, given his family is Jewish and his stance on Israel), or a racist. It comes in the assertion of 'dog whistles' like 'there were good people on both sides' and, in the case of his alleged misogyny "they let you grab them by the pussy'. Each, of course, without the respect of consulting the context to which they were said.
It's the worst kind of sophistry imaginable because it cuts right through the essence of a person's soul without a shred of evidence except for the bullet of another's perception all too willing to misrepresent you. The amount of logical fallacies since Trump's election leaves one spinning in dismay and shock at the stupidity of it all.
A form of Kafkatrpping is on display, I think, with the Gillette Ad. 'If you have a problem with the ad, then you're part of the problem'. As if no credible and valid argument can be constructed and mounted against the ad. Never mind the impossibility of even rebutting the charge. A person that says this is already signalling they're not willing to argue in good faith. The truth - their version thereof - is in the assertion.
This is what makes the ad - and the people who defend it - well, toxic.
Men are toxic. They need to do better. And if you challenge the two points, you're toxic.
No one thinks men are perfect but the ad failed to convey any compelling argument that men don't always strive to 'do better'.
The message, ergo, is bad. Not good. It's inherently dishonest and people where their moral and intellectual compass is properly calibrated saw right through it. Nothing comes good of a faulty premise.
Something the left has excelled at for over 100 years without much resistance.
*****
It's worth noting I'm hardly one for boycotts or hysterics. I even found the ad to be amusing in its arrogant stupidity and ignorance. I pitied the people who put it together and I pitied the culture at Gillette (P&G) that thought good of it (we meant good!) and I pity the 'cucks' (The 'My wife's boyfriend loves it!' joke encapsulates perfectly who the ad probably appealed to) who defend it.
*****
As noted here, why did Gillette choose the route they did?
And Gillette isn't fooling anyone - except fools - with this world salad of nonsense.
As noted up top, corporations are probably trying to protect themselves from losing out consumers. The latest rage is to 'go woke'.
If there's one thing I've learned in my life it's that consultants generally miss the mark. They over inflate the zeitgeist and take it to mean a permanent trend.
I remember in the 1990s when I was in university professors saying Japanese style business techniques were going to take over American practices (because they all were anti-American for the most part) and that we should learn Japanese because it was inevitable.
I see the same BS here with the calls to 'go woke' or else.
The other aspect I'd like to quickly mention is one way to gauge whether an ad succeeds is the reaction it gets. Some say any publicity is good publicity but that probably works better for celebrities. I suppose some unwanted negative publicity (eg Volkswagen emissions scandal) can have a limited impact at best. However, a commercial specifically created in a way meant to send a message but eliciting a negative reaction. Can mean many things including they failed in their mission.
We're seeing this with the Gillette ad. They had a specific goal in mind (however faulty it was in its original thought) and got a negative reaction. The pushback has been not 'we failed' (think Hilary and Democrats not accepting the results of the 2016 election choosing instead to blame everything else including the winner) and the market has spoken but to double down and challenge the integrity of those who had the temerity to object.
This is where I took huge issue with the response. I'm the problem for pointing out the obvious misrepresentations in the video? In this way, my entire blog post would be dismissed as 'trolling'.
No, it's not okay because you believe the message is good you get to manipulate the process. That's utter left-wing 'ends justifies the means' horseshit. Rather than challenge my 'male hood' for rebutting, how about you actually present an argument against the criticism?
You failed to convey the message. Blaming people who criticizing for not 'understanding' is paternalistic rubbish. If your message was done in good faith people will respond according. Gillette was not. They were virtue signalling and people mocked it.
My free advice? Stay clear of damn politics. Don't become that chapter in a business or history book titled, 'What did they get wrong?' or 'how could they have been so foolish?' Don't be a case study of what not to do.
I may delve into this further in the future but for now it's worth just putting this up on the radar. Know the source of this stuff like you should know the source of where all this SJW nonsense stems from. In the political realm, pay close attention to the 'new Democrats' in the DNC and play close attention to their past and rhetoric. It's pulling to the left - and not in a good way. Be informed.
I digress.
As usual, I just consider my personal opinion, read both sides and decide. Once more, the 'unwoke' are far more compelling in their interpretations and opinions.
To the simpleton, the message is about 'do better'. To more nuanced and sophisticated, the ideological message was all too clear.
I particularly liked this message from Egard watches. As I noted in another post, why not focus on the realities, positives and facts of what men face?
I may just purchase one of their watches soon enough:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.