• Sign up free today!

    Join in on the discussion, prediction leagues and competitions today! Sign up takes no longer than 5 minutes.

Bluewolf

Generation 'Snowflake'

Recommended Posts

Good call. Think Nike with Colin Kaepernick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IgnisExcubitor said:

Don't they have that already? And it's way more expensive than men's razors.

Correct, and they're also much worse than men's razors too... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2nd viewing, you can see all of the 'predators' or bullies are white whilst the protagonist in each scenario is black. 

Honestly. Why does everything have to be blatantly forced? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually wonder how many customers Gillette P&G lost in the entire process? I'd wager that the ocean didn't give two shits about the drops that left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Harry said:

Good call. Think Nike with Colin Kaepernick.

Again, I can't pick a a side here because Nike do not care at all about racial inequality, they just want to make money but the byproduct of the advert was it making masses of collosal bellends really angry, so I owe it a debt in that respect becauee that sort of things makes me beam from ear to ear. Similarly with gillette, the irritation of bellends is extremely gratifying. The reactions in this thread alone providing much mirth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Again, I can't pick a a side here because Nike do not care at all about racial inequality, they just want to make money but the byproduct of the advert was it making masses of collosal bellends really angry, so I owe it a debt in that respect becauee that sort of things makes me beam from ear to ear. Similarly with gillette, the irritation of bellends is extremely gratifying. The reactions in this thread alone providing much mirth. 

Yeah, Nike taking on social causes while needing to rely on sweatshops to survive as they do is a bit fucking rich. They legit do not give a fuck about any sort of stance, as you said, all they care about is making money. However, watching right wing morons in America upload videos of them burning their expensive trainers to twitter and whatnot, was just hilarious. And seeing some people say "oh wow this might be the end of Nike" (lol) was hilariously naïve of how powerful a bunch of hateful losers on the internet would be in terms of persuading the general consuming public.

Likewise, the Gillette ad is a stupid ad imo. But the backlash against it from the online army of incel weirdos is great.

Identity politics is fucking shite though and I wish it'd have less of a prominent role in our society. But with how polarised the political culture is now, I think there'll definitely be more ad campaigns from American companies highlighting this shite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's bollocks. The ad represents the current feminist movement (something I admired in the past). Emasculate men, but Gillette took it a step further. They emasculated 'white' men. That right there is when you can pin point the agenda. 

Like most, I find the whole thing patronising that white men only are being told how to behave. As if creeps aren't called out to begin with. Toxic Masculinity when a man told a women he should smile more and a man wanted to approach a women to introduce himself with hopes of snagging a number. Poor examples and the irony is that I've seen women do those kinds of things as well. 

Most importantly, they are a razor company. A pretty big one at that. If they are leaning towards this PC culture of advertisement at the risk of losing the majority of their target market, so be it. Hypocritical as well given their history of animal testing, but this will ultimately be the cost when companies get involved in politics. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cicero said:

It's bollocks. The ad represents the current feminist movement (something I admired in the past). Emasculate men, but Gillette took it a step further. They emasculated 'white' men. That right there is when you can pin point the agenda. 

Like most, I find the whole thing patronising that white men only are being told how to behave. As if creeps aren't called out to begin with. Toxic Masculinity when a man told a women he should smile more and a man wanted to approach a women to introduce himself with hopes of snagging a number. Poor examples and the irony is that I've seen women do those kinds of things as well. 

Most importantly, they are a razor company. A pretty big one at that. If they are leaning towards this PC culture of advertisement at the risk of losing the majority of their target market, so be it. Hypocritical as well given their history of animal testing, but this will ultimately be the cost when companies get involved in politics. 

There's a black guy in the commercial in that whole "boys will be boys" shite their criticising - then they show black and white men having their "epiphany" moment. Not sure I agree with the idea that this was targeting a particular race at all.

I also take issue with the idea they've "emasculated" anyone. Is it because they've used the phrase "toxic masculinity?" Because that's a stupid phrase and I generally think people who say that are idiots, but it's sort of just a meaningless phrase. But other than that, it's more critical of parents who stand by their kids bullying & people who are sexist. Ultimately the political message it seems to be sending is "Teach your boys to be kind. Also shave with a Gillett razor."

I'm not sure that the absence of kindness equates to masculinity, or that encouraging kindness equates to emasculating groups of men. I honestly think the people most offended by this ad are reading waaaaaaaay too far into this, it's honestly a bit hilarious.

As with Nike and Kaepernick, Gillett's in no danger of losing the majority of their target market xD - this will blow over and people will forget about being irritated by this ad. And of course it's hypocritical, it's a big corporation pretending that it cares about anything other than it's own profits. As if they give a fuck about any social cause xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore I think there’s a good argument to be made that razor companies have always been against masculinity. It’s a hair removal product, removing facial and body hair. Both of those are pretty manly things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just call that pro personal hygiene

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you thought the Gillette ad was a cracker you should go see the PETA ad for going vegan and improving 'male' performance that was released just one day after Gillette went out with their ad. Thought I wouldn't post it what the hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL38scvWFno

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

If you thought the Gillette ad was a cracker you should go see the PETA ad for going vegan and improving 'male' performance that was released just one day after Gillette went out with their ad. Thought I wouldn't post it what the hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL38scvWFno

Terrible ad. And questionable premise too....

Maybe you'd last longer in bed as a vegan because when you become a pale ass sickly looking S.o.b that gets puffed out after every 5 thrusts you'll call a time out on the loving to talk about your feelings, make hemp clothing and play hacky sack. 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Harry said:

Terrible ad. And questionable premise too....

Maybe you'd last longer in bed as a vegan because when you become a pale ass sickly looking S.o.b that gets puffed out after every 5 thrusts you'll call a time out on the loving to talk about your feelings, make hemp clothing and play hacky sack. 

 

I think it might actually be worse than Gillette's but that's debatable. I think the reason the PETA ad fails more is that it was trying to promote a Vegan lifestyle and I don't hate eating vegetables but that ad just made me not want to touch a vegetable for a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mel81x said:

I think it might actually be worse than Gillette's but that's debatable. I think the reason the PETA ad fails more is that it was trying to promote a Vegan lifestyle and I don't hate eating vegetables but that ad just made me not want to touch a vegetable for a bit.

They're pretty different animals imo. One is just stupid and low brow. The other is a bit preachy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw that PETA ad yesterday. By far the worst thing I've seen for a long, long while.  But it still didn't trump their daft 'words hurt' tweet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mel81x said:

If you thought the Gillette ad was a cracker you should go see the PETA ad for going vegan and improving 'male' performance that was released just one day after Gillette went out with their ad. Thought I wouldn't post it what the hell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL38scvWFno

 

What the actual fuck is that?... xD 

Although that's PETA after all so it's not surprising...

They also ran this ad a while ago:

gr4w3u2uam6z.jpg?width=541&auto=webp&s=b

Makes it look like the two guys were having a threesome with the chicken xD 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nudge said:

What the actual fuck is that?... xD 

Although that's PETA after all so it's not surprising...

They also ran this ad a while ago:

gr4w3u2uam6z.jpg?width=541&auto=webp&s=b

Makes it look like the two guys were having a threesome with the chicken xD 

Im very curious who their partner for marketing and advertising is because whoever it is deserves the axe like yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mel81x said:

Im very curious who their partner for marketing and advertising is because whoever it is deserves the axe like yesterday.

They've always been a bunch of insane weirdos; I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with those ingenious ideas by themselves...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nudge said:

They've always been a bunch of insane weirdos; I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with those ingenious ideas by themselves...

I just went back and looked at the image you posted. How has no one come out and gotten outraged by that monstrosity? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

I just went back and looked at the image you posted. How has no one come out and gotten outraged by that monstrosity? 

I guess it's because nobody takes PETA seriously as they always depended on shock factor to make their point... 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

There's a black guy in the commercial in that whole "boys will be boys" shite their criticising - then they show black and white men having their "epiphany" moment. Not sure I agree with the idea that this was targeting a particular race at all.

I also take issue with the idea they've "emasculated" anyone. Is it because they've used the phrase "toxic masculinity?" Because that's a stupid phrase and I generally think people who say that are idiots, but it's sort of just a meaningless phrase. But other than that, it's more critical of parents who stand by their kids bullying & people who are sexist. Ultimately the political message it seems to be sending is "Teach your boys to be kind. Also shave with a Gillett razor."

I'm not sure that the absence of kindness equates to masculinity, or that encouraging kindness equates to emasculating groups of men. I honestly think the people most offended by this ad are reading waaaaaaaay too far into this, it's honestly a bit hilarious.

As with Nike and Kaepernick, Gillett's in no danger of losing the majority of their target market xD - this will blow over and people will forget about being irritated by this ad. And of course it's hypocritical, it's a big corporation pretending that it cares about anything other than it's own profits. As if they give a fuck about any social cause xD

What Gillette views as toxic masculinity, we are all guilty of. Asking a girl to smile? Wanting to get a girls number? Are we in their eyes wrong with society? Aside that, this treatment towards women suggests this behavior represents the Male norm, hence the backlash. 

 The black heroism looked forced. Can't see it being coincidental.

 First we have Terry Crews speaking out against sexual assault. 

We then have a black guy intervening a white guy when he said that girl should smile. What a hero. 

A white guy then looked to have wanted to talk to a girl before a black guy came and told him not cool. 

Even with the two kids fighting, there's a black child peacefully sitting on the bench away from the fight. 

xD It's just a very, very, very bad ad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what the director came up with when doing an advert directed towards women... Slightly different tone.

No "be a better woman and stop nagging and stop being so insecure"... Strange that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry said:

This article very succinctly articulates the concerns expressed in this topic...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/open-future/2018/08/17/the-dangers-of-illiberal-liberalism#ampf=undefined

I'm pleased to see it being called the right thing, an argument between Liberals and no so Liberals. It's nothing to do with left/right, while many 'Liberals' may profess to be of the left they barely spend any time concerning themselves with what left wing politics is primarily about; the economy.

I try not to get to involved, I find those who throw around terms like snowflake, cuck etc to be generally be oddly angry, entitled, and probably sexually suppressed given the sexualised nature of their insults, bigots barely worth communicating with such is their idiocy. However, I find the use of terms like gammon as being equally risible, perhaps not racist in its origin but a puerile and stupid term used by people not able to communicate their argument intelligently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A corollary from that article I think is there are a shit ton of people that find the more extreme elements of either side of politics equally detestable and  so feel apathetic and lack a political party they can really get behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of pseudo-political feelgood bullshit is really the most powerful tool for the status quo you can find. Middle-class people tend to divert their honest intentions into concerns about sexual positivity, representation within media, political power being held by women and racial minorities, etc etc. 

From the point of view of those who hold the actual power in society - that is, economic power - these are really gifts. Honest people expending their efforts on these kinds of trivial issues is the dream scenario, because it essentially gives the ruling class a chance to rehabilitate itself in the eyes of would-be progressives. 

Major corporations can become the heroes by diversifying their board rooms, heartless conservatives like Hillary Clinton can secure fanatical support just by being a woman, soulless movie-making machines can become champions of progress by casting a majority-black cast whilst black artists working outside the Hollywood system get ignored, and this tactic can be repeated ad nauseam.

Capitalism is so survivable because it is a fundamentally two-faced system. On the one hand it rolls with the tide and creates a cultural sphere that can accommodate almost any kind of change of mood in society. It might seem like you're struggling to make this side of the system change, but really its point is to be adaptable and responsive to public sentiment. It might put up a pretend fight, but it doesn't really care.

 On the other, it has a dogmatic side - it won't willingly negotiate the rights of the propertied classes to dominate the political sphere, to siphon-off wealth and move it freely around the globe, and to destroy any organised labour power. These sorts of legal and economic issues are its real concerns, and to get any progress in these areas means really ripping off the mask and asking fundamental questions about how our societies are run. There have been rare moments in history where capitalism was forced to concede ground on these fronts - like the 1950s - but they are exceedingly rare.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Inverted said:

I think a lot of pseudo-political feelgood bullshit is really the most powerful tool for the status quo you can find. Middle-class people tend to divert their honest intentions into concerns about sexual positivity, representation within media, political power being held by women and racial minorities, etc etc. 

From the point of view of those who hold the actual power in society - that is, economic power - these are really gifts. Honest people expending their efforts on these kinds of trivial issues is the dream scenario, because it essentially gives the ruling class a chance to rehabilitate itself in the eyes of would-be progressives. 

Major corporations can become the heroes by diversifying their board rooms, heartless conservatives like Hillary Clinton can secure fanatical support just by being a woman, soulless movie-making machines can become champions of progress by casting a majority-black cast whilst black artists working outside the Hollywood system get ignored, and this tactic can be repeated ad nauseam.

Capitalism is so survivable because it is a fundamentally two-faced system. On the one hand it rolls with the tide and creates a cultural sphere that can accommodate almost any kind of change of mood in society. It might seem like you're struggling to make this side of the system change, but really its point is to be adaptable and responsive to public sentiment. It might put up a pretend fight, but it doesn't really care.

 On the other, it has a dogmatic side - it won't willingly negotiate the rights of the propertied classes to dominate the political sphere, to siphon-off wealth and move it freely around the globe, and to destroy any organised labour power. These sorts of legal and economic issues are its real concerns, and to get any progress in these areas means really ripping off the mask and asking fundamental questions about how our societies are run. There have been rare moments in history where capitalism was forced to concede ground on these fronts - like the 1950s - but they are exceedingly rare.

 

I deeply lament the fact that economic and social issues are grouped together on the same political spectrum of left vs right. 

It seems particularly bad to me in America (which unfortunately is very influential on politics everywhere else) for example where abortion seems to be a debate deliberately kept running for decades by conservatives to retain the allegiance of middle class white Christian voters. Meanwhile this party enact economic policy that undoubtedly screws these people, and elect conservative justices who pander to this base on such social issues whilst also passing insidious determinations such as Citizens United, basically abolishing limits on political donations and enabling individual political influence to be openly in direct proportion to individual wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Advertisement