Fuck Advertising

[hunter s.durden]

Again I ask: Who makes this judgement call? You? George Bush? Pauly Shore?

Just so everyone knows: This wasn't rhetorical. I want an answer.

I'm still waiting for someone to present their plan for the fair elimination of advertising that does not impede free speech.
I dont see it happening.

Here's a good answer:
"I believe in restricting free speech for certain groups (such as multi-billion dollar corporations) for the good of the people, as I interpret it. I am a fascist." Unfortunatly, this does not fit the "does not impede free speech" parameter, but at least it's honest.

Any takers?

[Cramulus]

this is somewhat off-topic, but
I'm in favor of reclaiming public spaces. In the last two days alone, I've put up probably 50 things up on trees, telephone poles, public boards, public spaces. Art, posters, Roger sermons, meme bombs, etc.

I walk around now, and many of them have been taken down.

Why?

About this time last year, I was putting stickers inside bus stations. This guy approached me, handed me a sticker I had put up not 30 seconds earlier, and said "You should do this to your own house. Not public places."

I was flabbergasted.

He's clearly not out there taking down the posters for whatever shitty movie is hot this week. Those are legitimate. He thought my meme bomb sticker was graffiti, it was vandalism, and he was responding as a concerned citizen.

Well where's the line between vandalism and art and commerce? Why is it that only commerce gets fair play, and the stuff which isn't quite vandalism gets treated like vandalism?

I just wish there were public places where I could put up art and improve my neighborhood. As is, the parking meter people take down any art I put up on telephone poles near parking meters. Even the goddamn garbage man take my posters off trees if they're near a garbage. And I'm not talking about posters which have slogans or causes. Pretty things like just full color glossy printouts of clouds, or sunsets, or a baby. But it gets ripped down. why? I don't get it.

Maybe it's a little pretentious to put pretty pictures in the res publica. But it's not like I'm the only one out there doing it. But a lot of them get to do it without harassment because it's advertising. They spent money on it, so it's legitimate. Bullshit.

/threadjack

[hunter s.durden]

I don't consider this a threadjack.

It's a very legitimate point. It also sort of ties in also with my "Why can't the homeless sleep in the park?" thing, but that would be a threadjack.

Well where's the line between vandalism and art and commerce? Why is it that only commerce gets fair play, and the stuff which isn't quite vandalism gets treated like vandalism?

I would like to see someone answer these questions legitimately. Bullshit is exactly what this is. This is one of those case of liberty and opportunity given only to the wealthy and culturally accepted, and the common man is repressed.

Keep it up. If someone takes it down, that means at least one person saw it.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Again I ask: Who makes this judgement call? You? George Bush? Pauly Shore?

Just so everyone knows: This wasn't rhetorical. I want an answer.

I'm still waiting for someone to present their plan for the fair elimination of advertising that does not impede free speech.
I dont see it happening.

Here's a good answer:
"I believe in restricting free speech for certain groups (such as multi-billion dollar corporations) for the good of the people, as I interpret it. I am a fascist." Unfortunatly, this does not fit the "does not impede free speech" parameter, but at least it's honest.

Any takers?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Corporations are not individuals. The Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States enumerates the rights and freedoms of Individuals, not corporations.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is obviously referring to The People, not a pretend entity that exists only on paper with the sole purpose of generating capital.

Corporations are not people. Corporations do not get read the Miranda Rights. Corporations do not go on trial. Corporations do not go to jail. They are a system designed to limit the liability of the People involved (LLC). The corporation provides a special circumstance where people are not held to the same level of liability (in this particular area of their life) as a normal citizen. If they are more protected from the consequences of their Speech, why should they have the same Freedom of Speech as an average citizen which is fully liable for what they say?

[LMNO]

HST,

When I say I "have a problem" with fradulent advertising, that doesn't mean it should be verboten.  It just bothers me, is all.

But as far as who makes the call, well...

"Bud Light: Chemically identical to Miller" is factual.

"Bud Light: Large-breasted women will congregate around you" is fradulent.

[hunter s.durden]

Good argument, Rat,but:

Corporations are not individuals.

Corporations are run by individuals. Is there really a difference between "Brought to you by Microsoft" or "brought to you by Bill Gates."

I am admittedly somewhat ignorant as to the rules governing what exactly a corporation is and things like taxation of them, but I imagine if you changed the definition of personal versus corporate, the manner in which advertising is brought to you would change.
Product placement like mutherfucker.
Banksy says "Don't fight wars, Drink Pepsi."
The lines are too blurry.

[hunter s.durden]

"Bud Light: Large-breasted women will congregate around you" is fradulent.

We'll get to this.

Are you then not saying that you want government intervention, simply stating how you feel? Because I hate advertising too. I rip down posters and defile ads. I'm an asshole. I understand the stance of "I don't like it, but it's a fact of life."

As for the above statement: This is not said, it's implied. If you get duped, you're an idiot. A fool and his money...
and that would lead us back to my lack of compassion for the blatently dumb.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Good argument, Rat,but:

Corporations are not individuals.

Corporations are run by individuals. Is there really a difference between "Brought to you by Microsoft" or "brought to you by Bill Gates."

I am admittedly somewhat ignorant as to the rules governing what exactly a corporation is and things like taxation of them, but I imagine if you changed the definition of personal versus corporate, the manner in which advertising is brought to you would change.
Product placement like mutherfucker.
Banksy says "Don't fight wars, Drink Pepsi."
The lines are too blurry.

There is a huge difference. If it's "Windows by Bill Gates" then when it crashes and costs a company $100,000 an hour while the server is convulsing, they can go after Mr. Gates for the lost monies, especially if they have documentation indicating that he promised "the best OS available" etc. Today, people that buy "Windows by Microsoft" do not get to go after Microsoft for the monies. In fact, even if the advertising slicks say things like "Microsoft Vista - Unhackable!" and it gets hacked... they aren't responsible (see Oracle with their Unhackable release).

Moreover, an individual MUST be more careful about their use of Free Speech. If I say "Product X has Lead in it and causes cancer" then the makers of Product X can sue my ass into last Tuesday. If, however, my corporation says  "Product X has Lead in it and causes cancer, buy our Product Y!", then the individuals don't get sued, at best the company might be fined (but as even our marketing dept will tell you, it becomes a "balance between how much money the lie makes vs. how much money the fine costs". This loophole causes an imbalance in the concept of Free Speech. Free Speech means you are Free to Speak but you must deal with the consequences of what you say. Corporations shouldn't have one without the other, at least I don't think so.

[hunter s.durden]

Corporations shouldn't have one without the other

I'll certainly agree with this.

However, I would propose leaving the ads, and making stricter consumer law.

I'm all about buyer beware, but I'll agree there has to be some standard. Paging Ralph Nader.

Unfortunately frivolousness enters the equation. I don't agree with the fatasses who sue McDonalds, but in your scenario, a failed guarantee certainly warrants some restitution.

[LMNO]

"Bud Light: Large-breasted women will congregate around you" is fradulent.

We'll get to this.

Are you then not saying that you want government intervention, simply stating how you feel? Because I hate advertising too. I rip down posters and defile ads. I'm an asshole. I understand the stance of "I don't like it, but it's a fact of life."

Yeah, pretty much.  I was just summing up Nigel becasuse she didn't want to do it herself.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Corporations shouldn't have one without the other

I'll certainly agree with this.

However, I would propose leaving the ads, and making stricter consumer law.

I'm all about buyer beware, but I'll agree there has to be some standard. Paging Ralph Nader.

Unfortunately frivolousness enters the equation. I don't agree with the fatasses who sue McDonalds, but in your scenario, a failed guarantee certainly warrants some restitution.

Right. There's a huge gulf between idiots making themselves fat by eating three big macs a day for 20 years and someone selling crap... like Windows. Further, there's yet a larger gulf between "free speech" and the marketing dept of Nike saying "We don't use Child Labor" then later defending it with "We should be free to advertise as we wish!!!" Having worked closely with marketing, I can tell you that they are well aware of the huge power they have in speech without control. I have, on several occasions heard the line about making more money off of X than any fines or bad PR would cost.

I have no problem with corporations advertising. However, I don't think that they should be covered by constitutional laws that were obviously designed for individuals, rather than corporations. Further, I think the spirit of the Constitutional amendment is clear, the framers didn't seem to be saying "You have the right to lie about anything!" rather they were saying that the government couldn't shut you, the individual, up (mostly likely in a religious or political setting). I see this argument much along the lines of the "McCain-Feingold harms Free Speech" argument. Free Speech doesn't equal "Give as much money as you wish to candidates", if McCain Feingold said "You can only talk about your favored candidate so many times, then I'd be pissed... but again, we have corporations able to pony up hundreds of times the cash that any individual could and being expected to have the same protections as the individual. It's bullshit.

[hunter s.durden]

LMNO, Gotcha.

Once again I am arguing for something I hate, because of the big picture.

I feel that if advertisment were somehow any more legislated, it would open our personal free speech up to attack. Chipping away at things is an effective tool.
(See: George Bush, Military commissions Act, Patriot Act, W's own quote that there has to be a limit on free speech, Do I need to go on?)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

LMNO, Gotcha.

Once again I am arguing for something I hate, because of the big picture.

I feel that if advertisment were somehow any more legislated, it would open our personal free speech up to attack. Chipping away at things is an effective tool.
(See: George Bush, Military commissions Act, Patriot Act, W's own quote that there has to be a limit on free speech, Do I need to go on?)

I dunno, I don't buy slippery slope arguments usually. Particularly since the government is limiting our speech further and further, while not saying a damned thing about the 'free speech' of corporations. I would argue that protecting our freedom of speech from people like GWB and from abuse by corporations seem equally important.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Where you slipped up is when you shifted from the evils of Advertising to the medium which contains the advertising.

There's nothing wrong with broadcast entertainment, as you watch Spongebob.  It seems you have a problem with the advertising.

Which no one would really argue against.





Either way, it seems you pwned yourself.

No, silly, they're two different and only tangentially related sentiments. Also, if you didn't notice, I was making a huge sweeping generalization about my personal dislike for BROADCAST entertainment, (tapes and DVDs are not broadcast, you see?) made a point of trying to lighten it up by throwing in a couple of jokes about teleportation, batteries, and flying, and somehow a couple of people seem to have gotten totally stuck on the one thing that I was not at all taking seriously. WTF.

[LMNO]

Please indicate the difference between the following:

1) Watching Spongebob on TV.
2) Watching Spongebob on TiVo.
3) Watching Spongebob on DVD.
4) Watching Spongebob downloaded on your computer.
5) Watching Spongebob on your iPod.


Please compare and contrast the differences between what you're watching, and how you're watching it, and why method 1) is inferior to methods 2)-5).