posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieThere are thousands of choices on where to get news, enough that anyone can find something that aligns with their opinions.
This is the problem!!
News reporting should be devoid of a left-leaning or a right-leaning opinion.....just tell the facts as they happened and let me form my own opinion! Opinions are for the op-ed pages of the newspaper or for a discussion show.....NOT FOR THE NEWS REPORT!
We don't have journalists anymore...
posted by CenterBHSFanYou keep trying to throw away the fact that most of the population watch/read/listen to the bigger names, which are all left leaning. You're the person who keeps denying that the color purple isn't violet.
I'm not arguing that the mainstream media isn't biased. Let's all agree it is. What I wonder is why people obsess over it when it is becoming less important by the year. I highly doubt your point that most people get their news via the traditional mainstream sources. I bet most people get their news from social media. Social media are not news sources necessarily, sometimes merely pass throughs., But that platform alone exposes the average Joe to a myriad of news production way beyond the mainstream media.
Finding outrage everyday at the bias of the mainstream media is a little like Groundhog's Day. It's a theme that has been around for decades. It's really not relevant anymore IMO.
posted by gutSo I see a highlight from a recent NYT article...."What if the obstruction WAS the collusion?"
LMFAO, so the new angle on all the fishing expedition is going to be Trump fired Comey [at the behest of Russia, I assume] in order to hinder the investigation into election meddling.
So wait ...
The collusion, in theory, took place during the election, because the claim is that it swayed the election.
But the obstruction, again in theory, took place after the election, because he had to already be president in order to fire Comey.
How the fuck do you rationalize linking two things which necessarily can't have taken place at the same time? The NYT is essentially saying he influenced the election by doing something after he was elected.
posted by QuakerOats
I will not buy a Gillette product again. Hard to believe the radical left is so focused on tearing down human nature, and all things male; sick people.
Perhaps this boycott will go as well as the Nike one did.
posted by like_thatNot sure if anyone has mentioned this, but has anyone watched this Gillette toxic masculinity ad? LOL, who the fuck thought this was a good idea? Hey guise, let's tell our main demographic they suck and are rapists! It's not like guys are loyalists to razor brands. It's not very hard for any of us to switch razors.
That's not really the impression I got from the ad, though I didn't watch it until this morning. Seemed like all they were conveying was to teach boys that objectifying women, bullying, raping, fighting, catcalling, etc. aren't part of what it means to be a man.
I can't say I disagree, though in the political climate in which we live, it was certainly a risky ad, not unlike the Nike one a few months ago.
When you combine the unfortunate timing of the razor commercial with the APA report that says that masculinity is bad for mental health... ehh... I can see why folks are riled up. FFS even women are starting to get sick of hearing about how bad men are.
Headline on HuffPost:
Rand Paul Heading To Canada, Land Of Universal Health Care, For Surgery
Of course, he's going to a private hospital that specializes in hernias and paying completely out-of-pocket.
posted by O-TrapThat's not really the impression I got from the ad, though I didn't watch it until this morning. Seemed like all they were conveying was to teach boys that objectifying women, bullying, raping, fighting, catcalling, etc. aren't part of what it means to be a man.
I can't say I disagree, though in the political climate in which we live, it was certainly a risky ad, not unlike the Nike one a few months ago.
From watching it just now, I had two impressions.
1. The general awkwardness of when a corporate brand tries to have a message-inspired commercial, where any impact gets blunted a bit by the inherent artificial nature of their corporate-ness.
2. That it's utterly hilarious that people are triggered by it enough to cry about it and call for boycotts. Little-bitchitis at its best. Lol, if that commercial threatened your masculinity, you probably didn't really have any to begin with.
As for the whole media bias deal that was brought up earlier, the fact that media has bias is something that's there and acting like it's not a thing because there are other, also biased, sources that a person can look up is pretty flawed. If anything actually deserves comment, it's the simple truth that the people who rail the most against the left-wing media bias are usually the ones who gravitate to the most hilariously-biased right wing sites for their news (CC with Breitbart; QQ with whatever nut-job blog site he's reading at the time), making it comparable to a situation where, for example, Lance Armstrong would be bitching about other athletes using performance enhancers -- where the accuser has no actual credibility to make those accusations.
posted by HereticFrom watching it just now, I had two impressions.
1. The general awkwardness of when a corporate brand tries to have a message-inspired commercial, where any impact gets blunted a bit by the inherent artificial nature of their corporate-ness.
2. That it's utterly hilarious that people are triggered by it enough to cry about it and call for boycotts. Little-bitchitis at its best. Lol, if that commercial threatened your masculinity, you probably didn't really have any to begin with.
I agree with your first point. Corporations exist to make profits for shareholders. They can vow to do things the right way. But I don't think anyone with any sense looks to them for guidance on morals and ethics.
I can see why people don't like the ad though. It casts too wide a net on male behavior. Yes, ass grabbing a stranger in the street is not the right choice. But the wrestling boys at the cookout? I don't know any fathers that would have stood around and watched their sons fight at a cookout pre-Gillette ad. "Hey, look over there. Your kid is pounding the shit out of mine. Oh well, boys will be boys."
posted by Fab4RunnerPerhaps this boycott will go as well as the Nike one did.
Or perhaps the Dicks Sporting Goods boycott...
Comparing Nike to a company that sells razors... LOL
posted by like_thatOr perhaps the Dicks Sporting Goods boycott...
Comparing Nike to a company that sells razors... LOL
Proctor & Gamble sells a lot more than razors, and I think they'll be just fine. Even Gillette sells products for women. I don't think some fragile dudes boycotting are going to make much of a difference, but of course time will tell.
I predict it will go as well as the NFL boycott.
|
Between this and partying in the Caribbean I think the majority of American people may soon realize what the dems are really up to. Ridiculous.
posted by CenterBHSFanWhen you combine the unfortunate timing of the razor commercial with the APA report that says that masculinity is bad for mental health... ehh... I can see why folks are riled up. FFS even women are starting to get sick of hearing about how bad men are.
I'm not saying a message that men or masculinity is bad wouldn't be nearly vomit-inducing. I'm just saying I didn't get the feeling that this ad crossed over that line. I think the ad did the okayest job of saying, "This shit isn't just part of being a man/masculinity. Don't do that shit," without saying there's necessarily anything wrong with being a man itself.
posted by justincredibleHeadline on HuffPost:
Rand Paul Heading To Canada, Land Of Universal Health Care, For Surgery
Of course, he's going to a private hospital that specializes in hernias and paying completely out-of-pocket.
Apparently, because he believe the free market system is better, he's supposed to believe that he can get better care here on anything and everything, no matter how specific (like non-mesh hernia repair).
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieI agree with your first point. Corporations exist to make profits for shareholders. They can vow to do things the right way. But I don't think anyone with any sense looks to them for guidance on morals and ethics.
I can see why people don't like the ad though. It casts too wide a net on male behavior. Yes, ass grabbing a stranger in the street is not the right choice. But the wrestling boys at the cookout? I don't know any fathers that would have stood around and watched their sons fight at a cookout pre-Gillette ad. "Hey, look over there. Your kid is pounding the shit out of mine. Oh well, boys will be boys."
I knew dads growing up that would have called that sort of thing "rough housing," as long as when the fight was over, it stayed over.
posted by fish82
My pals and I used to roam the streets playing grabass with strange girls. I now realize this was wrong. We are going to stop.
posted by Fab4RunnerProctor & Gamble sells a lot more than razors, and I think they'll be just fine. Even Gillette sells products for women. I don't think some fragile dudes boycotting are going to make much of a difference, but of course time will tell.
So, they wouldn't care if their revenue from a particular industry takes a hit? Again comparing Nike's brand to Gillette... LOL
It's not difficult for a consumer to speak with his/her wallet. I can see those who love to virtue signal be inspired to buy Nike gear after the Kaep commercial. I can't see a bunch of men and women being inspired to buy razors, because of another virtue signaling ad.
Meghan McCain just brutalized Brian Stelter
https://twitter.com/MeghanMcCain/status/1085265407806717955
Imagine being upset over a commercial promoting anti bullying and anti sexual harassment lol
If only it were that.
