The Random Thread of Random Randomness

No surprises there.

I think it made a very minor profit. Nothing to write home about.

 

Didn’t they do one where they attacked the lead programmer of Skynet? (I am probably several of these behind.)

 

I think we all know that I'm not going to watch it either! The trailer looked very sub par.

 

I have to say, I too was deeply offended by the ad. The way it depicted some men as being bullies and sexually harassing people, and that those things are bad; as a man I felt deeply attacked. When will they realise that criticising these things whilst depicting some men as doing them, and taking the time to say it isn’t all of them and that’s good, is actually them attacking the entire male gender!? It’s completely unacceptable

We really ought to end this pro-gender equality anti-harassment and therefore MAN-HATING style of advertising and go back to advertising things properly, how they used to be:



Seriously. I know their motivations are 100% greed based, and the message has nothing to do with why you should buy their razors, but to call it an attack on men is utterly ridiculous. By the logic of those offended by it, any piece of media or advertising that features one gender and depicts some of them doing bad things whilst calling them out for it would be an ‘attack’ on said gender.

The ad was attacking those who bully and sexually harass (two things which, coincidentally, are ingrained into society’s ideas of masculinity). Either you don’t do these things, in which case why would you be offended, or you do, in which case you deserve an awful lot worse than simply being offended. Nowhere in it did it say “you are a man, therefore you do these things”. There is an important distinction between that and what the ad said, ie. sexually harassing people and bullying people is bad (true), it is a problem particularly prevalent in men (also true), some men are already working against the problem (true again) and we should all strive to emulate these people (definitely true). It most certainly did not say “all men bully and sexually harass”.

I’m not saying that the advert was perfect in every way. It’s clearly a cynical marketing ploy (like every other ad, ever) and it didn’t exactly advertise the product itself in any way. For those reasons, I’d say that it was a fairly mediocre advert. However, that is not the reason people are getting upset about it. And if you’re trying to convince yourself that it is, ask yourself why these things are worth getting that angry about when you can find evidence of these things in millions of other ads that you clearly don’t give a f*** about.

If you don’t like the ad, fine. But calling an attack on all men is utter nonsense.

On a side note, it’s worth noting that most of the people who seem to be getting offended by this ad are the same people who absolutely love hurling around the insult “snowflake” at people who disagree with them. Interesting that.

 

I have a beard. All the money I have saved not shaving has gone into Miniatures.

None of my stations ever showed me the commercial with the pretty girls wearing the blue jump suits.

Would have been an upgrade over those blokes from the Blueman Group. I have seen TV adverts with them... Alas.

 

It would seem that the masses disagree with your viewpoint. If the genders were reversed, I believe you would be singing a very different tune. Simply put, I company couldn't get away with creating such an ad about women (and I hope you understand that the clip you posted was satirical in nature).

When it comes to ads, the truth is that for the most part, men are portrayed as bumbling idiots who are constantly being corrected and guided by strong, smart and in-control women. For the most part this makes sense, since ads are designed to sell things, and women are roughly responsible for spending upwards of 80% of all household income. As such, it is logical (although gross) to pander to women while largely disparaging men. However, in the case of the "Jillette" ad, it was aimed at selling things to men and as we can see, the result was very different from what they had hoped for.

That is a very interesting take on the ad. Even my leftist friend I talked to about the ad thought it was made it very poor taste. The same is true in the conversations I had with several women. The ad makes it seem that these behaviors are far more widespread than they are. Sure they don't outright say that all men are perpetrators of these actions, but they really do seem to cast a wide net. This whole toxic masculinity angle of the left is becoming very tiresome.

An 8 billion dollar loss is definitely far from perfect. Obviously the ad isn't responsible for that entire loss, but judging by the feedback and criticism, it probably lost them much more money than it made them (which runs contrary to the purpose of creating advertisements in the first place).

No need to take my word for it, they are scraping this line of advertisement. So either they changed their social viewpoints, or the ad was a colossal blunder that cost them a huge sum of money. At the end of the day the almighty dollar reigns supreme. Virtue signalling will never be as important as the bottom line.

See point above.

You have a very interesting rating scale. How many billions must be lost before an ad is to be rated bad or terrible?

Simple. If you wish to see change, you must engage in behaviors (in this case boycotting the product line) that will elicit that change (Gillette no longer making such advertisements). Otherwise, things will continue to deteriorate.

I have 8 billion reasons why you are wrong!

Hardly. People can simply disagree with the messaging being forced upon them and make corresponding counter-actions. In this specific case it seems to have worked. However, the people that disliked the ad did not cry for a safe space or engage in the typical leftist snowflake type behavior we see far too often.

Engaging in meaningful debate and choosing not to purchase razor blades and shaving gel from a specific company are not the same as:





Do you require further examples? [because I have more... lots more!!! And I shall rain them down upon this thread like a plague of locusts... those before me shall perish in fire and blood and from the ashes of this world I will build a better one! hahaha... too much? ]

What you're engaging in is the adult version of "I'm rubber, you're glue... whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you". That's your team buddy! The right-wing has many aspects I disagree with, but the whole triggered safe space culture is definitely not one of them.

 

Umm. Yes.

 

I think we have different definitions of the word triggered. What kind of behaviors do you consider to be a triggered response? I gave a couple of video examples of my definition, but from the way you are speaking of it, yours likely differs greatly.

I think we have the same issue here as above. You and I are using very different definitions of what a safe space is. Those are biased news networks just at the left has CNN, New York Times, TYT, etc. They may serve as echo chambers but they hardly fit with what I consider a safe space to be. For instance, if you go watch CNN, that doesn't mean that you necessarily require a safe space.

 

My definition of triggered is an over-the-top reaction to something that is relatively benign to the point where the person no longer acts like a fully functioning adult. Essentially the stimulus does not warrant the subsequent reaction by the triggered person. Their behavior massively deviates from how a "normal" adult would react. The key points are:

• the stimulus must be relatively benign. For instance, no one would fault a person for breaking down after they just witness their family being killed in front of them. While not everyone will react the same way, a breakdown at that point falls within the normal range of expected responses from a normal adult.
• the reaction must be aberrant and extreme (in relation to the stimulus). So if someone is upset by something and they discuss it properly or debate it or have some other form of reasonable reaction, then I would not consider them triggered.
• the person in question must be an adult of sound mind. A child for instance is not expected to have the cognitive capacities or understanding of social etiquette as an adult would. As such I would never label a young child as triggered, because throwing a tantrum falls within the reasonable and expected behaviors exhibited by young children.

So for instance, let's go back to the videos I provided earlier...


Throwing a tantrum like this in response to a guest speaker being invited to speak at a University campus is not consistent with normal adult behavior. This is below even the level of a relatively well behaved toddler. So here we have a benign stimuli (guest speaker speaking) and an over the top reaction (throwing the tantrum, see video). If she had critically discussed the ideas presented by the speaker and countered his ideas with hers, that would be perfectly acceptable. So would ignoring the speaker or any other number of other reasonable responses.





Next one. We have a person being presented with an idea opposite to their own (benign stimuli). And the guy freaks out and tries to discredit the other guy's opinion simply because he is a white male (rather than based the merit or absence of merit of the guy's arguments). Imagine if you were to replace the word "white" with "black"... sounds pretty racist now doesn't it? What makes this even doubly absurd is that the guy being triggered is a white male himself. So his response is clearly extreme and not one that would be expected from an adult with a fully functional brain.




Now for an example where the response is less dramatic, but still over the top based on the stimuli. The stimuli is the simple statement that on average men are taller than women. That is a biological fact and statically fact. So while walking out of a lecture can be a normal reaction under many circumstances, doing so over not being able to handle a fundamental scientific fact is absurd.







As for a safe space, it is related to being triggered. In the most extremely stupid cases, the triggered person is triggered to such a degree that they have to be removed from the benign triggering event and brought to a "safe space" where their fragile self won't be exposed to it. As I outlined before, the triggering stimuli must be relatively benign (by normal adult standards). If a place was under assault by a gunman for instance, and people were brought to a safer location, that would not be a "safe space" in the SJW context. Those people are facing a real danger that is clearly not benign.

Choosing to watch Fox or CNN (because you agree with their political viewpoint) is not being triggered and is not a safe space. Most if not all normal people exhibit confirmation bias. However, if someone needs to be removed from a room because someone tuned the TV to CNN or Fox News and they are subsequently moved to another location where that stimuli does not exist, that is a safe space (sometimes they even provide them with colouring books... no joke, and this was at a university campus).

 

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Everything but “grid” was explained.

Why is the adjective “grid” ?

 

*** baffled by the whole CNN triggers tantrums in safe rooms discussion Pendrake resorts to posting more battleships ***

 

A fun XKCD illustration.

 

Being triggered doesn’t just have to be a physical reaction.

I would consider demanding someone go back to where they came from and chanting “send her back” just because they are of a different skin colour being triggered.



I would consider using playground insults and quitting an interview just because you’ve been asked some difficult questions being triggered.



(Full interview here. It doesn’t do him any more favours)

https://youtu.be/6VixqvOcK8E

I would consider calling someone a stupid feminazi bitch because they invite discussion on a world without men being triggered.



I would even consider getting up in arms about an advert that says men shouldn’t bully or sexually harass people being triggered.

The right wing is just as capable of being triggered as the left. It just seems to me that the implications of what triggers them and how they react to it are far worse than simply walking out a lecture

 

Is the unlabeled zone around the familiar continents representing the water ocean covered portions of Earth?