As a discordian advertising in every exorbitant mutated form is against my religion for a few reasons the most convenient of which for satire purpose is that it seems to claim straight faced that words have meaning. Okay. Next thing, advertising is the absolute lowest form of culture imaginable... the facts:
-It's basic structure implies that culture is twisted and gloryholed for money. (wish i had some)
-The scope of it's presence in your conscious is condensed to smallest space and time, giving people the impression that strong emotions, deep values, REASONS, can be delivered in bite-sized form when you really need a huge fucking cake.
-It's repetition is eroding our value of human creativity, it's simplified artistic endeavor over and over day in and day out that when we see a kandinsky masterpiece we don't see flowing contrasting juxtapositions of form color and space but a whole 'colorful lil thingy that could be on my gap skirt if it wasnt so complicated lol!'
These are some of the reasons I would enjoy being a millionaire to buy tv time and fill it with wordless dada bs AND ITS NOT FUCKING VIRAL MARKETING.
and also a guerrilla ad vandalism covert op unit
Hm. I'm opposed to corporatism and the mind-control of the masses by giant corporate interests who want us fat and insecure so we'll buy whatever bullshit they're pimping in place of happiness, but as a person who has to sell their shit in order to live, without advertising in its most straightforward form, my children and I would starve.
Quote from: Nigel on January 06, 2008, 10:21:48 PM
Hm. I'm opposed to corporatism and the mind-control of the masses by giant corporate interests who want us fat and insecure so we'll buy whatever bullshit they're pimping in place of happiness, but as a person who has to sell their shit in order to live, without advertising in its most straightforward form, my children and I would starve.
That fact does not override the fact that advertising is, especially in this age, a result of enormous amounts of resources being invested in making people as stupid and as programmable as possible. Just because you depend for your survival on an industry designed to capitalize on weak wills and exploit ignorance, does not make that industry "okay."
To put it bluntly:
Get a real job, then.
on the other hand:
People are sheep no matter how you look at it. At least the sheep in the "Developed World" are led around by people just hoping to dupe them into wasting their cash, and not by people hoping to dupe them into pumping other people through the meat grinder of continual war.
Or wait, yes we are. Nevermind.
Oh, yeah, totally, it would be WAY more counter-culture if I quit making my glass shit and instead took a job at, say, Borders.
I think you're in the right forest but on the wrong trail. The corporate advertising machine is bad. Advertising itself is just a tool.
1. You don't get bonus points based on how "counter-culture" you are. You can do way more damage from the inside than you can from the outside, anyway.
2. Advertising valuable goods and services is worthwhile, assuming you are not artificially creating the illusion of the need for those goods and services. Call me Stalin, but I think we need a Parasite Law.
3. Your children wouldn't necessarily starve, anyway. At a certain point, they would turn on and eat you.
I don't give a shit about bonus points, I give a shit about living my principles and making three figures from home doing something I groove on. As for "doing more damage from the inside", oh, yeah, let me get my MBA so I can work my way up the corporate ladder doing something I fucking hate until I'm so bitter and burnt-out I could give a shit.
As for point #2, that was exactly the distinction I was trying to make. Advertising is not inherently good or evil: it is just a tool.
I see conveniently avoided my point about your children eating you.
Because we both know it's true. But THEN they would starve because there would be nothing else to eat.
there are people at work right now trying to present their product in a way that is gonna make us feel like we need it
right now
and by us - that includes you
so
as you go about your business - there is people whose life consists of figuring out ways to shape your decision making
is that bad? not really
it is what it is
it isnt particularly good tho - at least not in the wholesome and nurturing sense of good
you can interpret it as a challenge perhaps?
i agree with the OP that it misrepresents complex emotions
(potentially damaging)
News:
None of this is news.
Who stole Vex's login id?
Quote from: Nigel on January 07, 2008, 12:44:37 AM
As for "doing more damage from the inside", oh, yeah, let me get my MBA so I can work my way up the corporate ladder doing something I fucking hate until I'm so bitter and burnt-out I could give a shit.
No imagination.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2008, 03:59:12 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 07, 2008, 12:44:37 AM
As for "doing more damage from the inside", oh, yeah, let me get my MBA so I can work my way up the corporate ladder doing something I fucking hate until I'm so bitter and burnt-out I could give a shit.
No imagination.
How about this, Roger: No DESIRE. I have an absolute lack of desire to play the game from within the system. You can if you want to, but if I'm going to put on the marionette strings and dance the little dance I'll do it by running for office when the kids are in high school. You may think it's a lack of imagination that makes me loathe the idea of "doing it from the inside" but in fact it's just a game I don't feel like playing. I want to live my life the way I want to live it. At this point in time it means that I want to make "art" and sell it on the internet. Am I still playing a game and dancing a dance? Hell yes, of course I am. But at least it's one I LIKE, and it's one that other people like too, and every few months another successful independent craftsperson or business owner comes to me and thanks me for giving them the inspiration and guidance to dance a dance they like, too.
So fuck anyone who thinks I should grow more of an imagination and dance THEIR dance inside THEIR soul-eating corporate mission. I've worked for corporations, it was lame, and I don't want to. So thhhbbbbbbbbt.
Quote from: Nigel on January 07, 2008, 04:19:05 AM
How about this, Roger: No DESIRE.
Okay. And when they come and chip your kids prior to drafting them for some godforsaken war in North Africa, you can take solace in the fact that at least you TRIED to stop them, by selling kitsch on the internets.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2008, 05:03:55 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 07, 2008, 04:19:05 AM
How about this, Roger: No DESIRE.
Okay. And when they come and chip your kids prior to drafting them for some godforsaken war in North Africa, you can take solace in the fact that at least you TRIED to stop them, by selling kitsch on the internets.
Don't be too hard on her. The Establishment is almost impossible to avoid, much less defeat. The best thing to do is play along, be quiet, never rock the boat, and hope to God they don't notice you have children. Selling kitsch makes you look harmless, and the stormtroopers only bother with people who look dangerous, so it makes you safe. After all, if you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to fear them.
Besides, war isn't so bad if you're White.
Quote from: vexati0n on January 07, 2008, 05:31:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2008, 05:03:55 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 07, 2008, 04:19:05 AM
How about this, Roger: No DESIRE.
Okay. And when they come and chip your kids prior to drafting them for some godforsaken war in North Africa, you can take solace in the fact that at least you TRIED to stop them, by selling kitsch on the internets.
Don't be too hard on her. The Establishment is almost impossible to avoid, much less defeat. The best thing to do is play along, be quiet, never rock the boat, and hope to God they don't notice you have children. Selling kitsch makes you look harmless, and the stormtroopers only bother with people who look dangerous, so it makes you safe. After all, if you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to fear them.
Besides, war isn't so bad if you're White.
Har har...remember this?
Litany for Dictatorships
A poem by Stephen Vincent Benet
For all those beaten, for the broken heads,
The fosterless, the simple, the oppressed,
The ghosts in the burning city of our time...
For those taken in rapid cars to the house and beaten
By the skillful boys with the rubber fists,
-Held down and beaten, the table cutting the loins
Or kicked in the groin and left, with the muscles jerking
Like a headless hen's on the floor of the slaughter-house
While they brought the next man in with his white eyes staring.
For those who still said "Red Front" or "God save the Crown!"
And for those who were not courageous
But were beaten nevertheless.
For those who spit out the bloody stumps of their teeth
Quietly in the hall,
Sleep well on stone or iron, watch for the time
And kill the guard in the privy before they die,
Those with the deep-socketed eyes and the lamp burning.
For those who carry the scars, who walk lame - for those
Whose nameless graves are made in the prison-yard
And the earth smoothed back before the morning and the lime scattered.
For those slain at once.
For those living through the months and years
Enduring, watching, hoping, going each day
To the work or the queue for meat or the secret club,
Living meanwhile, begetting children, smuggling guns,
And found and killed at the end like rats in a drain.
For those escaping
Incredibly into exile and wandering there.
For those who live in the small rooms of foreign cities
And who yet think of the country, the long green grass,
The childhood voices, the language, the way wind smelt then,
The shape of rooms, the coffee drunk at the table,
The talk with friends, the loved city, the waiter's face,
The gravestones, with the name, where they will not lie
Nor in any of that earth.
Their children are strangers.
For those who planned and were leaders and were beaten
And for those, humble and stupid, who had no plan
But were denounced, but were angry, but told a joke,
But could not explain, but were sent away to the camp,
But had their bodies shipped back in the sealed coffins,
"Died of pneumonia." "Died trying to escape."
For those growers of wheat who were shot by their own wheat-stacks,
For those growers of bread who were sent to the ice-locked wastes.
And their flesh remembers the fields.
For those denounced by their smug, horrible children
For a peppermint-star and the praise of the Perfect State,
For all those strangled, gelded or merely starved
To make perfect states; for the priest hanged in his cassock,
The Jew with his chest crushed in and his eyes dying,
The revolutionist lynched by the private guards
To make perfect states, in the names of the perfect states.
For those betrayed by the neigbours they shook hands with
And for the traitors, sitting in the hard chair
With the loose sweat crawling their hair and their fingers restless
As they tell the street and the house and the man's name.
And for those sitting at the table in the house
With the lamp lit and the plates and the smell of food,
Talking so quietly; when they hear the cars
And the knock at the door, and they look at each other quickly
And the woman goes to the door with a stiff face,
Smoothing her dress.
"We are all good citizens here. We believe in the Perfect State."
And that was the last time Tony or Karl or Shorty came to the house
And the family was liquidated later.
It was the last time.
We heard the shots in the night
But nobody knew next day what the trouble was
And a man must go to his work.
So I didn't see him
For three days, then, and me near out of my mind
And all the patrols on the streets with their dirty guns
And when he came back, he looked drunk, and the blood was on him.
For the women who mourn their dead in the secret night,
For the children taught to keep quiet, the old children,
The children spat-on at school.
For the wrecked laboratory,
The gutted house, the dunged picture, the pissed-in well
The naked corpse of Knowledge flung in the square
And no man lifting a hand and no man speaking.
For the cold of the pistol-butt and the bullet's heat,
For the ropes that choke, the manacles that bind,
The huge voice, metal, that lies from a thousand tubes
And the stuttering machine-gun that answers all.
For the man crucified on the crossed machine guns
Without name, without ressurection, without stars,
His dark head heavy with death and his flesh long sour
With the smell of his many prisons - John Smith, John Doe,
John Nobody - oh, crack your mind for his name!
Faceless as water, naked as the dust,
Dishonored as the earth the gas-shells poison
And barbarous with portent.
This is he.
This is the man they ate at the green table
Putting their gloves on ere they touched the meat.
This is the fruit of war, the fruit of peace,
The ripeness of invention, the new lamb,
The answer to the wisdom of the wise.
And still he hangs, and still he will not die
And still, on the steel city of our years
The light falls and the terrible blood streams down.
We thought we were done with these things but we were wrong.
We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom.
We thought the long train would run to the end of Time.
We thought the light would increase.
Now the long train stands derailed and the bandits loot it.
Now the boar and the asp have power in our time.
Now the night rolls back on the West and the night is solid.
Our fathers and ourselves sowed dragon's teeth.
Our children know and suffer the armed men.
Quote from: LHX on January 07, 2008, 01:42:45 AM
there are people at work right now trying to present their product in a way that is gonna make us feel like we need it
right now
and by us - that includes you
so
as you go about your business - there is people whose life consists of figuring out ways to shape your decision making
is that bad? not really
it is what it is
it isnt particularly good tho - at least not in the wholesome and nurturing sense of good
you can interpret it as a challenge perhaps?
i agree with the OP that it misrepresents complex emotions
(potentially damaging)
Yeah, I suppose, it is really not that bad but it annoys me to no end.
My biggest peeve is how it desensitizes us to art and complex thought.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 07, 2008, 05:03:55 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 07, 2008, 04:19:05 AM
How about this, Roger: No DESIRE.
Okay. And when they come and chip your kids prior to drafting them for some godforsaken war in North Africa, you can take solace in the fact that at least you TRIED to stop them, by selling kitsch on the internets.
As opposed to stopping them by working for Starbucks? :lulz:
at starbucks, you have a large degree over- for example, how a person's day is going to be. on a relatively large scale. on top of that, there are lots of repeat costumers, so you can observe and select marks for hijinx and fun.
example: you can make a random decent person feel nice just by comping their coffee for some BS reason, which makes a small ripple of other benevolent acts around that person, etc... and the waves usually dissipate in this senario, but it's still cool.
or the opposite:
you can make someone you know is a total asshat feel like shit in a variety of ways, which adds to his attitude, which will overflow to people that will give him backlash.
...you're basically a legal drug dealer...that gives you a lot of leverage over a costumer.
just saying that you can be a wrench in the machine while working at starbucks. i have personal experience in that.
I worked for a coffee company for 5 years. I was a barista for 3 of those years, and the tea/spice blendmaster for 2. I actually really enjoyed that job.
I'm not saying that it's not possible to have a large influence on people at any level of interaction... I'm just questioning the "you can do more damage from the inside" statement, as if somehow I can be more effective (at what? Also a question) doing something I DON'T want to do than I am while doing something I love and am good at.
The notion that we should all work corporate jobs in order to do the most "damage" (???) is a little too lockstep for my tastes. Do what you WANT to do, provided you can get away with it.
yes, you are who you are.
and so is everyone else.
i'd like to be doing work i enjoy, rather than tolerate.
but the things i enjoy that i could get paid for i do anyway, which is currently in discussion
in another thread.(creativity is free- Think for youtself)
but i can also get paid for more random opportunities to chip my bits out of the gears, and the occasional pleasant encounter i wouldn't have had otherwise (new friend, cohort, recruit, contact, etc..)
and i still have music and pubic art, which i can't be fired from.
as for the question of what you can do better from the inside, exactly-
it's more a matter, i think, of the size-of-demographic you can potentially hold sway over.
what office would you run for, and why? (if you don't mind)
Quote from: vexati0n on January 07, 2008, 12:32:03 AM
2. Advertising valuable goods and services is worthwhile, assuming you are not artificially creating the illusion of the need for those goods and services. Call me Stalin, but I think we need a Parasite Law.
OK, Stalin, I'll play.
Who decides what we need and don't need?
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 07, 2008, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on January 07, 2008, 12:32:03 AM
2. Advertising valuable goods and services is worthwhile, assuming you are not artificially creating the illusion of the need for those goods and services. Call me Stalin, but I think we need a Parasite Law.
OK, Stalin, I'll play.
Who decides what we need and don't need?
I do. You primates can't be trusted to decide what's important for yourselves.
P.S. I like Roger's hateshit better, it's more cuddly.
It's a serious question.
You can't throw out a half-assed blanket statement like that and think everything is solved.
Bottled water. Do we need it? Well, we need water to survive. However, we don't necessarily need it in plastic bottles from a warehouse in Texas. We can go down to the creek, or even our own sinks.
Playstation. I feel Playstation fills my emotional needs where women have failed time after time.
I'm not being a hater for hatings sake, I just don't trust people telling me I need and don't need.
Okay. General guidelines for sane marketing:
Necessities (food, water, etc) - fine.
Electronics (computers, game consoles, etc) - more important than necessities.
Magic Miracle Potato-Peeling Gloves, The NEXT-GENERATION floor sweeper, color-seal zip-lock baggies, anything advertised on TV between 11 PM and 6 AM, etc - fuck off.
Quote from: vexati0n on January 07, 2008, 02:00:41 PM
Okay. General guidelines for sane marketing:
Necessities (food, water, etc) - fine.
Electronics (computers, game consoles, etc) - more important than necessities.
In red- agreed.
What about McDonalds. Is that food? Isn't that detrimental to our health?
Cigarettes can't be advertised on TV because they kill you.
McDonalds can kill you, and make your life shitty because you're fat.
I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, make anything people "need" except perhaps on some basic magpie level. However, I also don't try to convince them or brainwash them into believing that they "need" beads and marbles. I think that's where the corporate advertising machine crosses the line into evil... when it collaborates with the media of insecurity to brainwash people into believing they "need" things in order to make them happy, rather than merely showing them a product and hoping someone out there wants it.
"The masters, whether they be priests or kings or capitalists, when they want to exploit you, the first thing they have to do is demoralize you, and they demoralize you very simply by kicking you in the nuts. This is how it's done...This is a principle of the advertising copy writer, that he must stir up discontent in the family. Modern American advertising is aimed at the woman, who is, if not always the buyer at least the pesterer, and it is designed to create sexual discontent....But with the adult, the young married couple, which is the object of almost all advertising, the copy is pitched to stir up insatiable sexual discontent. It provides pictures of women who never existed. A guy gets in bed with his wife and she isn't like that and so he is discontented all the time and is therefore fit material for exploitation."
- Kenneth Rexroth, in an interview on The Social Lie
Advertising, marketing, schmoozing...
The MARKETING GUYS are assholes, they are willing to do anything to ensure that you buy their product (except make a product you actually need, or make a quality product you actually want). THEY will try to craft words, phrases, memes and catchy graphics to manipulate the minds of Individuals!! THEY will take their ideas and consider them as Most Important and THEY will try to override any other ideas that may get in their way. THEY are EVIL.
It IS US vs THEM...
Quote from: Cain on January 07, 2008, 05:34:23 PM
"The masters, whether they be priests or kings or capitalists, when they want to exploit you, the first thing they have to do is demoralize you, and they demoralize you very simply by kicking you in the nuts. This is how it's done...This is a principle of the advertising copy writer, that he must stir up discontent in the family. Modern American advertising is aimed at the woman, who is, if not always the buyer at least the pesterer, and it is designed to create sexual discontent....But with the adult, the young married couple, which is the object of almost all advertising, the copy is pitched to stir up insatiable sexual discontent. It provides pictures of women who never existed. A guy gets in bed with his wife and she isn't like that and so he is discontented all the time and is therefore fit material for exploitation."
- Kenneth Rexroth, in an interview on The Social Lie
This pretty much sums it up.
Quote from: Prater Festwo on January 07, 2008, 08:10:59 AM
at starbucks, you have a large degree over- for example, how a person's day is going to be. on a relatively large scale. on top of that, there are lots of repeat costumers, so you can observe and select marks for hijinx and fun.
example: you can make a random decent person feel nice just by comping their coffee for some BS reason, which makes a small ripple of other benevolent acts around that person, etc... and the waves usually dissipate in this senario, but it's still cool.
or the opposite:
you can make someone you know is a total asshat feel like shit in a variety of ways, which adds to his attitude, which will overflow to people that will give him backlash.
...you're basically a legal drug dealer...that gives you a lot of leverage over a costumer.
just saying that you can be a wrench in the machine while working at starbucks. i have personal experience in that.
Ah to have control of all Starbucnks and then spike every cup with LSD, for just one day.....
No one would be enlightened, but I would love to see 98% of Corporate America tripping.
Doesn't that violate one of Leary's rules of Acid? "Thou shalt not dose someone without their consent," or something like that?
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2008, 07:36:09 PM
Doesn't that violate one of Leary's rules of Acid? "Thou shalt not dose someone without their consent," or something like that?
Leary was a clown and a fuckwit that thought that Acid would fix everyone. There are several good arguments as to how he single-handedly brought the Wrath of the Pinks down on LSD. In principle, I agree... I would never dose a friend with Acid just for fun. However, if one was really trying to cause serious havoc in Corporate America, LSD loaded Starbucks would be a toss to rival that sweet Golden Apple up on Ol' Limbo Peak!
Well, since I'm not a damn dirty hippie/Acid casualty I don't really follow his rules anyway... I just thought you might.
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2008, 07:52:02 PM
Well, since I'm not a damn dirty hippie/Acid casualty I don't really follow his rules anyway... I just thought you might.
Aw now come on LMNO, what sort of Discordian would I be if I was following someone else's rules? ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 07, 2008, 08:17:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2008, 07:52:02 PM
Well, since I'm not a damn dirty hippie/Acid casualty I don't really follow his rules anyway... I just thought you might.
Aw now come on LMNO, what sort of Discordian would I be if I was following someone else's rules? ;-)
The majority of 'em, apparently.
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2008, 08:21:42 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 07, 2008, 08:17:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 07, 2008, 07:52:02 PM
Well, since I'm not a damn dirty hippie/Acid casualty I don't really follow his rules anyway... I just thought you might.
Aw now come on LMNO, what sort of Discordian would I be if I was following someone else's rules? ;-)
The majority of 'em, apparently.
ROFL, I hope not... maybe they're like Fundie Christians and just happen to be the loudest minority?
is advertising the same as encouraging?
supporting?
endorsing?
these things seem to run together...
am i advertising myself with this post?
Quote from: LHX on January 07, 2008, 09:07:25 PM
is advertising the same as encouraging?
supporting?
endorsing?
these things seem to run together...
am i advertising myself with this post?
Depends on how fuzzy your semantic circuit is ;-)
depends on how fuzzy the semantic circuit is
its funny how at the end of certain stories - some of the bad guys turn out to be the good guys
and some of the good guys get wiped out because they couldnt hack it
Quote from: LHX on January 07, 2008, 09:23:35 PM
depends on how fuzzy the semantic circuit is
its funny how at the end of certain stories - some of the bad guys turn out to be the good guys
and some of the good guys get wiped out because they couldnt hack it
Troof.
Quote from: LHX on January 07, 2008, 09:07:25 PM
is advertising the same as encouraging?
supporting?
endorsing?
these things seem to run together...
am i advertising myself with this post?
This tied in with the point I was originally trying to make.
It went unanswered and has now been buried.
I agree with alot of things in this thread, a standout being:
Quote from: Nigel on January 07, 2008, 05:22:18 PM
when it collaborates with the media of insecurity to brainwash people into believing they "need" things in order to make them happy, rather than merely showing them a product and hoping someone out there wants it.
That said, I don't trust the government to step in and do the exact same thing, by dictating what ads I should see.
Who do I trust?
You fags.
Boycotts, word of mouth promotion, industrial sabotage... The people around me will help me make informed decisions about what I need and who is screwing me.
A government mandate declaring Nike commercials illegal is not the answer.
Good point, Hunter (you fagbasket).
I'm always amazed at how blatently pandering/threatening most commercials are. I usually think, "are people really suckered into buy this shit?" Unfortunately, they do.
People should understand by now that commercials lie. To be a sucker at this point is the fault of the consumer, not the advertiser.
Actually, this makes me think of something I read recently.
http://nascentideas.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/citation-needed/
Someone is printing out stickers that say:
[citation needed]
and is defacing billboards with them. I think it's a truly awsome idea, and one that we should employ at will.
citationgasm?
Quote from: LMNO on January 08, 2008, 03:36:33 PM
Good point, Hunter (you fagbasket).
I'm always amazed at how blatently pandering/threatening most commercials are. I usually think, "are people really suckered into buy this shit?" Unfortunately, they do.
People should understand by now that commercials lie. To be a sucker at this point is the fault of the consumer, not the advertiser.
Actually, this makes me think of something I read recently.
http://nascentideas.wordpress.com/2008/01/02/citation-needed/
Someone is printing out stickers that say:
[citation needed]
and is defacing billboards with them. I think it's a truly awsome idea, and one that we should employ at will.
Oaaahhhhhh..! Yes. Mittens. Kittens. The internets. Whatever it takes.
I can summarize this thread in three words:
Caveat Emptor, Motherfuckers.
Converse has been trying out a little disruptive marketing. It's interesting to say the least. Reminds me of the meme bomb thread.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iisE-RdeV4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxUR_0eMfEM&NR=1
and another one that says
"This program was brought to you by old people.
Like old, old.
Like your parents' age old.
Designing your clothes. Marketing your music. Greedily waiting for you to buy into a system made by people who have no idea what it's like to be you.
Enjoy the next commercial."
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 09, 2008, 01:30:52 AM
I can summarize this thread in three words:
Caveat Emptor, Motherfuckers.
truth, but I try to temper my contempt with pity for the less fortunate.
advertising rocks cause ad agencies hire artists and i want a job someday. rah!
Quote from: Nigel on January 09, 2008, 07:09:22 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 09, 2008, 01:30:52 AM
I can summarize this thread in three words:
Caveat Emptor, Motherfuckers.
truth, but I try to temper my contempt with pity for the less fortunate.
why?
srsly...why?
Quote from: B_M_W on January 08, 2008, 08:57:02 PM
citationgasm?
sure!
tagged:
http://del.icio.us/triplezero/gasm
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 09, 2008, 12:57:46 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 09, 2008, 07:09:22 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 09, 2008, 01:30:52 AM
I can summarize this thread in three words:
Caveat Emptor, Motherfuckers.
truth, but I try to temper my contempt with pity for the less fortunate.
why?
srsly...why?
Because a lot of people were born stupid, and it's not their fault.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMohCOhSq2Y :lulz: Anti-herogasm :fap:
Quote from: Nigel on January 09, 2008, 04:15:13 PM
Because a lot of people were born stupid, and it's not their fault.
We need a "bullshit card" smiley.
Retards and the insane need special help. Fuck the rest.
Speaking for America, we are all forced through an educational system that, while not always great, will teach those that wish to be taught. The morons that choose to ignore the abundance of education and knowledge that is lying around for free should be fucked in half and thrown to the wolves. I applaud the tobacco companies and the self-help industry for exploiting a niche and using those educational tools to their advantage.
Most people are assholes that choose to live in blind ignorance, but born stupid?
I think not.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 09, 2008, 09:10:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 09, 2008, 04:15:13 PM
Because a lot of people were born stupid, and it's not their fault.
We need a "bullshit card" smiley.
Retards and the insane need special help. Fuck the rest.
Speaking for America, we are all forced through an educational system that, while not always great, will teach those that wish to be taught. The morons that choose to ignore the abundance of education and knowledge that is lying around for free should be fucked in half and thrown to the wolves. I applaud the tobacco companies and the self-help industry for exploiting a niche and using those educational tools to their advantage.
Most people are assholes that choose to live in blind ignorance, but born stupid?
I think not.
Shoot and Score. That's a bad-ass truth motorcycle you're riding there.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 09, 2008, 09:10:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 09, 2008, 04:15:13 PM
Because a lot of people were born stupid, and it's not their fault.
We need a "bullshit card" smiley.
Retards and the insane need special help. Fuck the rest.
Speaking for America, we are all forced through an educational system that, while not always great, will teach those that wish to be taught. The morons that choose to ignore the abundance of education and knowledge that is lying around for free should be fucked in half and thrown to the wolves. I applaud the tobacco companies and the self-help industry for exploiting a niche and using those educational tools to their advantage.
Most people are assholes that choose to live in blind ignorance, but born stupid?
I think not.
damn.
I hate to fuel your fire, but you hit that one dead on.
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Not everyone lucks into brains, and the average IQ in America is 100. That's 20 points above retarded. Granted, MOST people could be smarter than they are, but an awful lot of the people who REALLY get shafted by "the System" or taken advantage of by the unscrupulous are genuinely NOT VERY SMART. They have a hard time figuring things out or getting skills for a new job because they are congenitally stupid. And THAT is why I try to temper my contempt for the stupid with compassion, because while most people could be "smarter" if they tried, the people who get raped the worst by our society are genuinely stupid in a non-negotiable way.
what the hell does "IQ" (which is both arbitrary and meaningless) have to do with anything?
there are lots of people who are probably technically retarded who still choose to lead productive lives on their own terms, and there are definitely lots of potential Mensa members who have chosen to be ignorant apathetic shitbags who's biggest contribution to society is allowing a neilsen box to be hooked up to their TV.
also, SO WHAT if people are born stupid? Why does that mean I should feel pity for them? I am more important to me than they are.
IQ is pretty arbitrary as anything except a measurement of a certain type of logic... however, just from observing and working with people, not everyone is very smart, and I feel bad for people who struggle in life simply because their allotted DNA didn't happen to land them much by way of cognitive skills. Some of them are people who are good, and try as hard as they can, and they read (but have a hard time understanding what seems obvious to others) and they do what they can to better themselves, but they are just NOT THAT SMART and they struggle, and are easily taken advantage of. Are you seriously ragging on me for having an iota of compassion for the truly dumb?
There are also truck-driving, hat-wearing, hooting assholes who could be doing better if they tried, but they already think they're perfect so they don't bother. No compassion for them. Nonetheless, as I said, I TRY TO TEMPER MY CONTEMPT WITH COMPASSION because some people have the bad luck to be BORN STUPID. You may choose to believe that nature has no influence over a person's adult cognitive abilities, but even if it's fetal alcohol syndrome or being neglected as a baby or being dropped on their heads that makes them irrecoverably stupid, I still feel bad for them, and fuck you if you think that makes me a worse person.
Speaking of people who have a difficult time with reading comprehension, I never said that YOU should try to temper YOUR contempt with compassion.
Quote from: Nigel on January 09, 2008, 10:19:30 PM
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Not everyone lucks into brains, and the average IQ in America is 100. That's 20 points above retarded.
just to tag in here because I have a bachelors in this shit--
IQ ratings are based comparing one's test score vs the average. A score of 100 is average.
By definition, the average person has an IQ of 100. That's how they're designed. If we, as a culture, all ate paint chips or took smart pills, the average IQ would always remain 100.
also I don't think we're talking about people who are "born stupid" (whatever that means) - I thought we were talking about people who CHOOSE to be stupid and uninformed.
I have 40 credits in Psychology. And I can tell you Professor Cramulus is only saying this because he suffers from Penis Envy and wishes to humiliate Nigel, because of his unresolved Oedpial issues.
Quote from: Nigel on January 09, 2008, 10:31:21 PM
IQ is pretty arbitrary as anything except a measurement of a certain type of logic... however, just from observing and working with people, not everyone is very smart, and I feel bad for people who struggle in life simply because their allotted DNA didn't happen to land them much by way of cognitive skills. Some of them are people who are good, and try as hard as they can, and they read (but have a hard time understanding what seems obvious to others) and they do what they can to better themselves, but they are just NOT THAT SMART and they struggle, and are easily taken advantage of. Are you seriously ragging on me for having an iota of compassion for the truly dumb?
There are also truck-driving, hat-wearing, hooting assholes who could be doing better if they tried, but they already think they're perfect so they don't bother. No compassion for them. Nonetheless, as I said, I TRY TO TEMPER MY CONTEMPT WITH COMPASSION because some people have the bad luck to be BORN STUPID. You may choose to believe that nature has no influence over a person's adult cognitive abilities, but even if it's fetal alcohol syndrome or being neglected as a baby or being dropped on their heads that makes them irrecoverably stupid, I still feel bad for them, and fuck you if you think that makes me a worse person.
touch a nerve, did I?
:lulz:
as for reading comprehension, not only did I not think that you were telling me that I should feel compassionate towards those fortunate enough to be expoitable by me, I never even told you that you shouldn't feel the aforementioned compassion.
I just asked you why.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on January 09, 2008, 10:46:40 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 09, 2008, 10:19:30 PM
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Not everyone lucks into brains, and the average IQ in America is 100. That's 20 points above retarded.
just to tag in here because I have a bachelors in this shit--
IQ ratings are based comparing one's test score vs the average. A score of 100 is average. By definition, the average person has an IQ of 100. That's how they're designed. If we, as a culture, all ate paint chips or took smart pills, the average IQ would always remain 100.
Thanks for that info. It makes sense.
Quote
also I don't think we're talking about people who are "born stupid" (whatever that means) - I thought we were talking about people who CHOOSE to be stupid and uninformed.
I wasn't. Which is why I specified that I try to temper my contempt with compassion because some people
are born stupid.
No they're not.
Anyway, are you saying that intelligence (barring redardation, birth defects, etc) is a genetic trait?
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2008, 01:54:37 PM
No they're not.
Anyway, are you saying that intelligence (barring redardation, birth defects, etc) is a genetic trait?
:pokewithstick:
we also need this one as a post icon.
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2008, 01:54:37 PM
No they're not.
Anyway, are you saying that intelligence (barring redardation, birth defects, etc) is a genetic trait?
Partially. There are both inherent and environmental influences on intelligence. Are you saying that retardation is influenced by genetics, but intelligence isn't?
I would tend to think genetics has a stronger impact on retardation than intelligence.
I tend to think that whatever influence genetics has on intelligence is trumped and pwned by the environment.
I've seen many a potentially gifted child crushed and pwned by their parents' apathy and indifference. Sure, you get kids who rise above that, but I would say it has less to do with intelligence then their inherent will and drive. My parents are high school graduates. My Dad is a blue-collar worker, my Mom a stay-at-home Mom. They both are certainly talented and have strenghts but they will be the first to tell you that they aren't brimming with knowledge. I turned out the way I did because they allowed me to foster my imagination and intelligence. They were encouraging and supported me where they could. They didn't condemn me to status quo and "the way life should be." I think I was born with some inherent intelligence, but I wouldn't be where I am today without the home they made for me.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2008, 04:20:49 PM
I would tend to think genetics has a stronger impact on retardation than intelligence.
I tend to think that whatever influence genetics has on intelligence is trumped and pwned by the environment.
I've seen many a potentially gifted child crushed and pwned by their parents' apathy and indifference. Sure, you get kids who rise above that, but I would say it has less to do with intelligence then their inherent will and drive. My parents are high school graduates. My Dad is a blue-collar worker, my Mom a stay-at-home Mom. They both are certainly talented and have strenghts but they will be the first to tell you that they aren't brimming with knowledge. I turned out the way I did because they allowed me to foster my imagination and intelligence. They were encouraging and supported me where they could. They didn't condemn me to status quo and "the way life should be." I think I was born with some inherent intelligence, but I wouldn't be where I am today without the home they made for me.
Exactly. What genetics have to do with it is that people are genetically programmed to live in and adapt to the environment they are presented with. Minds, like fish, will not outgrow their tank.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 10, 2008, 04:20:49 PM
I would tend to think genetics has a stronger impact on retardation than intelligence.
I tend to think that whatever influence genetics has on intelligence is trumped and pwned by the environment.
I've seen many a potentially gifted child crushed and pwned by their parents' apathy and indifference. Sure, you get kids who rise above that, but I would say it has less to do with intelligence then their inherent will and drive. My parents are high school graduates. My Dad is a blue-collar worker, my Mom a stay-at-home Mom. They both are certainly talented and have strenghts but they will be the first to tell you that they aren't brimming with knowledge. I turned out the way I did because they allowed me to foster my imagination and intelligence. They were encouraging and supported me where they could. They didn't condemn me to status quo and "the way life should be." I think I was born with some inherent intelligence, but I wouldn't be where I am today without the home they made for me.
A computer has some limit to its power, based on hardware constraints. It has other limits based on OS constraints and still others by various programs (and their quality). Humans seem a lot like that... there appear to be some physical constraints to how smart/strong/cute/healthy a person will be. However, the OS (First 2 circuit imprints?) and the applications (everything else) also seem to have a great impact.
Or not...
I agree with RWHN, aside from the word choices Nigel picked up on.
Also with Rat, based on the circuit model.
A mechanic can know shit-tons about the way an engine works, but get an 800 on an SAT test. A college student can get a 1600, but not know shit about internal combustion.
You say "born stupid", I say "conditioned not to be curious outside of their experiences."
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2008, 06:53:25 PM
You say "born stupid", I say "conditioned not to be curious outside of their experiences."
Which is still a survival trait in much of the world, where being too curious of things outside ones experience may involve a whole range of new and potentially fatal experiences if that line of enquiry is not soon curtailed.
No argument from me.
So you guys think that NOBODY is just naturally limited by natural stupidity?
In a separate but related question, do you only recognize defect-based forms of mental retardation?
Some of the people who are born stupid probably suffer from environmental toxicity in the womb... fetal alcohol syndrome is common, for instance. Do you not believe that brain damage from fetal alcohol syndrome or oxygen deprivation or other parthenogens could result in irrecoverable stupidity?
I said that most people could do better, but some people have the misfortune to be born stupid. Hence my choice to have compassion. Are you seriously arguing that NO ONE is born stupid, and therefore there is no reason behind such a compassion?
Clinically, "Mental Retardation" has a cutoff line, above which people who are unfortunate are still limited, but do not qualify as disabled. Mental ability exists in a spectrum. Some of the people are near one edge of the spectrum, some are near the other edges, some people are nearer the center. Some of the people are not limited enough to be defined as retarded, but they are pretty close. I don't like retarded people, but I do feel sorry for them.
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2008, 08:26:18 PM
So you guys think that NOBODY is just naturally limited by natural stupidity?
Natural stupidity sounds like one of those things when you ask 100 different people you'll get 100 different answers/definitions.
QuoteIn a separate but related question, do you only recognize defect-based forms of mental retardation?
Some of the people who are born stupid probably suffer from environmental toxicity in the womb... fetal alcohol syndrome is common, for instance. Do you not believe that brain damage from fetal alcohol syndrome or oxygen deprivation or other parthenogens could result in irrecoverable stupidity?
It's still a birth defect. I'd say it's in the same class as mental retardation.
QuoteI said that most people could do better, but some people have the misfortune to be born stupid. Hence my choice to have compassion. Are you seriously arguing that NO ONE is born stupid, and therefore there is no reason behind such a compassion?
Again, I don't think anyone is born stupid. Anyone who finds the desire and will to learn will do so. It's not a matter of stupidity, it's a matter of drive. This of course can be stifled by environment, but short of birth defect or other physiological harm or malady, I believe there is always potential.
QuoteClinically, "Mental Retardation" has a cutoff line, above which people who are unfortunate are still limited, but do not qualify as disabled. Mental ability exists in a spectrum. Some of the people are near one edge of the spectrum, some are near the other edges, some people are nearer the center. Some of the people are not limited enough to be defined as retarded, but they are pretty close. I don't like retarded people, but I do feel sorry for them.
That's an interesting perspective. When you say you don't like "retarded people" are you talking clinical or your definition of "retarded" or "naturally stupid"?
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2008, 08:26:18 PM
Clinically, "Mental Retardation" has a cutoff line, above which people who are unfortunate are still limited, but do not qualify as disabled.
I don't generally go around giving IQ tests to the people I meet, but in short, no.
If you are not actually retarded or insane, you get no sympathy.
Actually, even if you are, I sometimes get a "survival of the fittest" mentality.
But I'm insane.
"environmental toxisity" =/= genetic.
I was asking if intelligence is genetic, not if you can fuck up an infant's brain.
I can fuck up an infants brain
Just play this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Az_7U0-cK0) to them on constant loop from about the age of 3 months onwards.
the cool stupid people usually have some kind of thing they're not stupid at, to make up for it.
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2008, 08:26:18 PM
So you guys think that NOBODY is just naturally limited by natural stupidity?
I think that there are probably some hardware limitations to each individual. However, I doubt that the hardware limitations are as detrimental to the individual's ability to learn, as software limitations (environment, psychological imprinting etc).
Quote
In a separate but related question, do you only recognize defect-based forms of mental retardation?
Some of the people who are born stupid probably suffer from environmental toxicity in the womb... fetal alcohol syndrome is common, for instance. Do you not believe that brain damage from fetal alcohol syndrome or oxygen deprivation or other parthenogens could result in irrecoverable stupidity?
Retardation, in my view, is a statement that something has gone wrong and slowed/decreased/harmed the functionality of the individuals brain at some physical level. Maybe due to disease, womb environment (eating lead?) or physical environment (see Wild Children, the movie 'Nell', some of the kids I've tried to teach to read). Doesn't matter if its genetic, due to a car accident, due to huffing gasoline or due to having idiot redneck parents that think their child "shouldn't read more better than them".
Quote
I said that most people could do better, but some people have the misfortune to be born stupid. Hence my choice to have compassion. Are you seriously arguing that NO ONE is born stupid, and therefore there is no reason behind such a compassion?
I'm not saying that.
Quote
Clinically, "Mental Retardation" has a cutoff line, above which people who are unfortunate are still limited, but do not qualify as disabled. Mental ability exists in a spectrum. Some of the people are near one edge of the spectrum, some are near the other edges, some people are nearer the center. Some of the people are not limited enough to be defined as retarded, but they are pretty close. I don't like retarded people, but I do feel sorry for them.
"The most thoroughly and relentlessly Damned, banned, excluded, condemned, forbidden, ostracized, ignore, suppressed, repressed, robbed, brutalized and defamed of all Damned Things is the individual human being. The social engineers, statistician, psychologist, sociologists, market researchers, landlords, bureaucrats, captains of industry, bankers, governors, commissars, kings and presidents are perpetually forcing this Damned Thing into carefully prepared blueprints and perpetually irritated that the Damned Thing will not fit into the slot assigned it. The theologians call it a sinner and try to reform it. The governor calls it a criminal and tries to punish it. the psychologist calls it a neurotic and tries to cure it. Still, the Damned Thing will not fit into their slots. " - Hagbard Celine
Quote from: LMNO on January 10, 2008, 08:50:53 PM
"environmental toxisity" =/= genetic.
I was asking if intelligence is genetic, not if you can fuck up an infant's brain.
And I said that I don't know, but that it's probably a combination of genes and environment. Being born stupid isn't necessarily the result of genetics.
I am not replying to anything else tonight because I don't have time. Perhaps tomorrow.
At the risk of sounding concillatory, perhaps you can agree to the statement, "Some people are born with brains that for some reason do not function as well as others."
In this way, we aren't talking about intelligence, we're talking about the hardware potential.
We can also separate the people who are stupid because of physical means, and people who are stupid because of psychological means.
Now, I don't think either of us has a way of saying what percentage of people have poorly functioning hardware, but I would hazard that it is far less than the amount of people who believe the ads on TV.
Which is what we were talking about in the first place.
fuck stupid people.
srsly, get them the fuck off of my rock.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2008, 02:14:39 PM
At the risk of sounding concillatory, perhaps you can agree to the statement, "Some people are born with brains that for some reason do not function as well as others."
In this way, we aren't talking about intelligence, we're talking about the hardware potential.
We can also separate the people who are stupid because of physical means, and people who are stupid because of psychological means.
Now, I don't think either of us has a way of saying what percentage of people have poorly functioning hardware, but I would hazard that it is far less than the amount of people who believe the ads on TV.
Which is what we were talking about in the first place.
There seem to be many layers of Stupid though. Stupid, in the sense that some hardware has malfunctioned (in the womb, after getting dropped on ones head, or after huffing Jenkem); Stupid in the sense that they are illiterate, uninformed, or maybe superstitious; Stupid in the sense that they have a different set of knowledge than society in general (like that TV is full of manipulative ads, designed to psychologically affect your perception of reality)... that is, they may be able to skin a deer, run a trot line, create beautiful wood furniture, know every local plant and critter, what's good to eat, what's good for medicine etc. Yet, if we drop that person in a city, they might be considered a royal idiot (particularly if the latter two forms of Stupid are combined as often seems to be the case in Rural US). Then of course there's the Stupid that comes from being lazy and not having any concern for learning; the Stupid that comes from thinking you aren't Stupid (see FSM) and the Stupid that comes from having no program/training which discusses cause and effect, responsibility or consequences. I'm sure there are lots more possibilities for Stupid...
I think, though, that this covers some instances of dumb from the womb and many instances of stupid by virtue of programming. We also have some instances where 'Stupid' may be a social statement where only some kinds of knowledge are considered 'smart'.
maybe?
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 11, 2008, 04:10:23 PM
There seem to be many layers of Stupid though. Stupid, in the sense that some hardware has malfunctioned (in the womb, after getting dropped on ones head, or after huffing Jenkem);
This is one kind of stupid.
QuoteStupid in the sense that they are illiterate, uninformed, or maybe superstitious; Stupid in the sense that they have a different set of knowledge than society in general. Then of course there's the Stupid that comes from being lazy and not having any concern for learning; the Stupid that comes from thinking you aren't Stupid (see FSM) and the Stupid that comes from having no program/training which discusses cause and effect, responsibility or consequences. I'm sure there are lots more possibilities for Stupid...
This is another kind of stupid.
Yes, I'm only giving two options.
In one kind of stupid, you will never get smarter, no matter how hard you try, because you are actually physically limited by your hardware.
In the other kind, you have the potential to become smarter in anything, if you decide to (not that it's in any way
easy, but that's not the point).
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 11, 2008, 04:10:23 PM
... that is, they may be able to skin a deer, run a trot line, create beautiful wood furniture, know every local plant and critter, what's good to eat, what's good for medicine etc. Yet, if we drop that person in a city, they might be considered a royal idiot (particularly if the latter two forms of Stupid are combined as often seems to be the case in Rural US).
This sort of intelligence is over-looked soooo often nowadays.
If the collapse hapened tomorrow, alot of these people would be kings.
Seems a fair distinction to me. The former are hardly to blame for their state and can do nothing to change it, the latter may or may not be to blame to some degree (bad imprinting could be a problem, sometimes) but they fail to do anything about it.
So you've got:
Ability to acquire new information
and
Need to acquire new information
and
Desire to acquire new information
As LMNO points out, if the ability is shot, well the person is out of luck.
Perhaps that is a kind of stupid.
Beyond that, I don't know if stupid is the appropriate word anymore. I think it's about ignorance.
One feels all of their needs for new information are satiated and there is no longer any need to pull in more.
Another recognizes they have the basics to survive, but they want and desire more information, to have a clearer picture of what's going on around them.
Of course, you've also got the types who don't contemplate desire, and acquiring more and more knowledge IS a need to survive. The types who can't see the forest through the trees.
Quote from: LMNO on January 11, 2008, 02:14:39 PM
At the risk of sounding concillatory, perhaps you can agree to the statement, "Some people are born with brains that for some reason do not function as well as others."
In this way, we aren't talking about intelligence, we're talking about the hardware potential.
We can also separate the people who are stupid because of physical means, and people who are stupid because of psychological means.
Now, I don't think either of us has a way of saying what percentage of people have poorly functioning hardware, but I would hazard that it is far less than the amount of people who believe the ads on TV.
Which is what we were talking about in the first place.
That works for me.
Quote from: mian tiao noodle on January 09, 2008, 07:46:06 AM
advertising rocks cause ad agencies hire artists and i want a job someday. rah!
Win.
Shunted off of the open bar. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.new#new)
Quote from: Nigel on January 21, 2008, 08:21:37 PM
Quote from: Reverend Ju Ju Booze on January 21, 2008, 11:45:35 AM
QuoteI've thought for a while now the point of advertising is to make people aware your company/product exists
That's the point of a single ad,and it's surely far from brainwashing as Netaungrot says,but atvertising as a whole,as a practice,is different to me.
For example,a mercedes-benz commercial tries to make you buy a mercedes benz,but surely you won't run out and buy one just because you saw the ad,even if you saw it billions of times.But you see many brands' commercials so maybe you are not brainwashed by mercedes or BMW,but the idea that you need some cool car to be cool coul have made it in your brain...wich car,is still your choice,but you will be less conditioned by cost and fuel consuption when choosing.That's why useless and overexpensive SUVs are sold in massive quantities...
So,IMHO,single commercials just tells you that a product exist,and that it's a good product,while advertising and commercials as a media phenomenon sticks in your head the idea that you always have to buy something;single products try to be that something,and surely ad campaigns are risky for a single productor,but you're more likely to buy stuff,so a company's problem is not if advertising will work or not, but how big will be its share of the additional incomes caused by ALL the commercials...
Well said. It's also important to remember that children are growing up surrounded by these messages... the message that you must consume to be not just cool but HAPPY is everywhere. Intelligent adults can think critically, but children are eager little sponges, and advertisers know this, and use it... and by the time children are old enough to use their critical thinking skills, they have a lot of deprogramming to do to themselves. First, though, it has to occur to them that they need/want deprogramming.
The need to consume and the satisfaction of consuming is a natural drive. Just like how Bower birds like to collect neat little piles of things as status symbols to attract mates. There's nothing innately wrong with consuming or collecting.
It's not advertisers' role to teach your children about how much you believe is appropriate for them to consume. Who do you want to make that call? The state? Adbusters? :roll: That's your job as a Mom.
Consumers created the consumerism in society with their fucking gluttony, not some ev0l j00 conspiracy that controls minds (and the childrens!) with advertising media.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 21, 2008, 11:46:47 PM
Shunted off of the open bar. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.new#new)
Quote from: Nigel on January 21, 2008, 08:21:37 PM
Quote from: Reverend Ju Ju Booze on January 21, 2008, 11:45:35 AM
QuoteI've thought for a while now the point of advertising is to make people aware your company/product exists
That's the point of a single ad,and it's surely far from brainwashing as Netaungrot says,but atvertising as a whole,as a practice,is different to me.
For example,a mercedes-benz commercial tries to make you buy a mercedes benz,but surely you won't run out and buy one just because you saw the ad,even if you saw it billions of times.But you see many brands' commercials so maybe you are not brainwashed by mercedes or BMW,but the idea that you need some cool car to be cool coul have made it in your brain...wich car,is still your choice,but you will be less conditioned by cost and fuel consuption when choosing.That's why useless and overexpensive SUVs are sold in massive quantities...
So,IMHO,single commercials just tells you that a product exist,and that it's a good product,while advertising and commercials as a media phenomenon sticks in your head the idea that you always have to buy something;single products try to be that something,and surely ad campaigns are risky for a single productor,but you're more likely to buy stuff,so a company's problem is not if advertising will work or not, but how big will be its share of the additional incomes caused by ALL the commercials...
Well said. It's also important to remember that children are growing up surrounded by these messages... the message that you must consume to be not just cool but HAPPY is everywhere. Intelligent adults can think critically, but children are eager little sponges, and advertisers know this, and use it... and by the time children are old enough to use their critical thinking skills, they have a lot of deprogramming to do to themselves. First, though, it has to occur to them that they need/want deprogramming.
The need to consume and the satisfaction of consuming is a natural drive. Just like how Bower birds like to collect neat little piles of things as status symbols to attract mates. There's nothing innately wrong with consuming or collecting.
It's not advertisers' role to teach your children about how much you believe is appropriate for them to consume. Who do you want to make that call? The state? Adbusters? :roll: That's your job as a Mom.
Consumers created the consumerism in society with their fucking gluttony, not some ev0l j00 conspiracy that controls minds (and the childrens!) with advertising media.
There is no room for this personal responsibility crap in my century.
Advertising hasn't been about product awareness for longer than I have been alive.
Its about selling you a lifestyle. Just watch an ad by Coca-Cola or iPod if you don't believe me. The idea is to draw assosciations between unrelated effects through purchasing. You can "buy" the cool, trendy hipster lifestyle promoted by iPod ads and thus, in a small way, become cool, trendy and hip yourself.
Its not advertising, its bloody sympathetic magic in a new wrapping.
Well, I think it can vary for different products.
The big one that sticks out in my mind is Prescription Drugs in the USA. 10 years ago, you didn't have direct to consumer ads for prescription drugs because it wasn't allowed. Someone in the FDA writes a memo reinterpreting regulations, and blammo, the floodgates were open.
10 years ago and before you found out about what drug you should take, at the doc visit. Now, with all of the advertising, many are going into Doctor's offices saying, "I have x disease and so I need y drug." Now, sure again, there is certainly personal responsibility at play. A patient should go in with symptoms and let their doctor choose the best course of action. They shouldn't go in demanding and pressuring to get a certain prescription.
But there is another aspect to this plethora of advertising, the kids who have been growing up since the moratorium on Rx drug advertising was lifted. If kids watch anything besides Nick and Disney they will see all of the ads. This can potentially give a young person the idea that the solution to ALL aches and pains, mental and physical, is popping a pill. Of course, here again, is a role for personal responsibility on the part of parents. To teach their kids about media and media awareness/literacy.
So yes, advertising can have an impact, but, it also can be easily combatted just by being aware of it.
Quote from: Cain on January 22, 2008, 02:14:38 PM
Advertising hasn't been about product awareness for longer than I have been alive.
Its about selling you a lifestyle. Just watch an ad by Coca-Cola or iPod if you don't believe me. The idea is to draw assosciations between unrelated effects through purchasing. You can "buy" the cool, trendy hipster lifestyle promoted by iPod ads and thus, in a small way, become cool, trendy and hip yourself.
Its not advertising, its bloody sympathetic magic in a new wrapping.
Good point. I have been fully aware from a very early age that Miller, Coors, and Budweiser all sell crappy beer that give you the shits the next day,
but you will be a sexual messiah if you drink it.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 21, 2008, 11:46:47 PM
Shunted off of the open bar. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.new#new)
Quote from: Nigel on January 21, 2008, 08:21:37 PM
Quote from: Reverend Ju Ju Booze on January 21, 2008, 11:45:35 AM
QuoteI've thought for a while now the point of advertising is to make people aware your company/product exists
That's the point of a single ad,and it's surely far from brainwashing as Netaungrot says,but atvertising as a whole,as a practice,is different to me.
For example,a mercedes-benz commercial tries to make you buy a mercedes benz,but surely you won't run out and buy one just because you saw the ad,even if you saw it billions of times.But you see many brands' commercials so maybe you are not brainwashed by mercedes or BMW,but the idea that you need some cool car to be cool coul have made it in your brain...wich car,is still your choice,but you will be less conditioned by cost and fuel consuption when choosing.That's why useless and overexpensive SUVs are sold in massive quantities...
So,IMHO,single commercials just tells you that a product exist,and that it's a good product,while advertising and commercials as a media phenomenon sticks in your head the idea that you always have to buy something;single products try to be that something,and surely ad campaigns are risky for a single productor,but you're more likely to buy stuff,so a company's problem is not if advertising will work or not, but how big will be its share of the additional incomes caused by ALL the commercials...
Well said. It's also important to remember that children are growing up surrounded by these messages... the message that you must consume to be not just cool but HAPPY is everywhere. Intelligent adults can think critically, but children are eager little sponges, and advertisers know this, and use it... and by the time children are old enough to use their critical thinking skills, they have a lot of deprogramming to do to themselves. First, though, it has to occur to them that they need/want deprogramming.
The need to consume and the satisfaction of consuming is a natural drive. Just like how Bower birds like to collect neat little piles of things as status symbols to attract mates. There's nothing innately wrong with consuming or collecting.
It's not advertisers' role to teach your children about how much you believe is appropriate for them to consume. Who do you want to make that call? The state? Adbusters? :roll: That's your job as a Mom.
Consumers created the consumerism in society with their fucking gluttony, not some ev0l j00 conspiracy that controls minds (and the childrens!) with advertising media.
It's not MY children that I'm worried about. It's all the other kids they have to live in the same world with.
If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible. Actually; that's not true. It would be to invent teleportation, and after that it would be to invent a perfect battery. After that, to fly, and to be able to change sex at will. But somewhere after that it would definitely be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.
"Broadcast Entertainment?"
Quote from: Nigel on January 22, 2008, 07:56:48 PMIf I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible. Actually; that's not true. It would be to invent teleportation, and after that it would be to invent a perfect battery. After that, to fly, and to be able to change sex at will. But somewhere after that it would definitely be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.
who needs entertainment after you got all that stuff anyway?
You don't need to get rid of "broadcast entertainment". It certainly is a good idea to get kids to get off the couch and explore their world, but you don't need to eliminate it. They will still be subjected to bad ideas and influential messages. The trick is for them to have critical thinking skills and to be able to make sense of all that they are experiencing and taking in. Someone with sound judgement and thinking skills is not going to have any trouble understanding advertisements on television.
Yeah. Look at all the fucked up shit humans did before TV...
Quote from: Nigel on January 22, 2008, 07:56:48 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 21, 2008, 11:46:47 PM
Shunted off of the open bar. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=3618.new#new)
Quote from: Nigel on January 21, 2008, 08:21:37 PM
Quote from: Reverend Ju Ju Booze on January 21, 2008, 11:45:35 AM
QuoteI've thought for a while now the point of advertising is to make people aware your company/product exists
That's the point of a single ad,and it's surely far from brainwashing as Netaungrot says,but atvertising as a whole,as a practice,is different to me.
For example,a mercedes-benz commercial tries to make you buy a mercedes benz,but surely you won't run out and buy one just because you saw the ad,even if you saw it billions of times.But you see many brands' commercials so maybe you are not brainwashed by mercedes or BMW,but the idea that you need some cool car to be cool coul have made it in your brain...wich car,is still your choice,but you will be less conditioned by cost and fuel consuption when choosing.That's why useless and overexpensive SUVs are sold in massive quantities...
So,IMHO,single commercials just tells you that a product exist,and that it's a good product,while advertising and commercials as a media phenomenon sticks in your head the idea that you always have to buy something;single products try to be that something,and surely ad campaigns are risky for a single productor,but you're more likely to buy stuff,so a company's problem is not if advertising will work or not, but how big will be its share of the additional incomes caused by ALL the commercials...
Well said. It's also important to remember that children are growing up surrounded by these messages... the message that you must consume to be not just cool but HAPPY is everywhere. Intelligent adults can think critically, but children are eager little sponges, and advertisers know this, and use it... and by the time children are old enough to use their critical thinking skills, they have a lot of deprogramming to do to themselves. First, though, it has to occur to them that they need/want deprogramming.
The need to consume and the satisfaction of consuming is a natural drive. Just like how Bower birds like to collect neat little piles of things as status symbols to attract mates. There's nothing innately wrong with consuming or collecting.
It's not advertisers' role to teach your children about how much you believe is appropriate for them to consume. Who do you want to make that call? The state? Adbusters? :roll: That's your job as a Mom.
Consumers created the consumerism in society with their fucking gluttony, not some ev0l j00 conspiracy that controls minds (and the childrens!) with advertising media.
It's not MY children that I'm worried about. It's all the other kids they have to live in the same world with.
If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible. Actually; that's not true. It would be to invent teleportation, and after that it would be to invent a perfect battery. After that, to fly, and to be able to change sex at will. But somewhere after that it would definitely be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.
After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.
Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 22, 2008, 09:39:05 PM
After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.
Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL.
I don't get drunk around my kids, and outside of the ridiculously frequent festivities of the "holiday season", I don't get drunk that often. Also I think you are a complete fucking asshole for saying that.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 22, 2008, 08:23:34 PM
You don't need to get rid of "broadcast entertainment". It certainly is a good idea to get kids to get off the couch and explore their world, but you don't need to eliminate it. They will still be subjected to bad ideas and influential messages. The trick is for them to have critical thinking skills and to be able to make sense of all that they are experiencing and taking in. Someone with sound judgement and thinking skills is not going to have any trouble understanding advertisements on television.
Yeah, but what if it causes cancer?
Quote from: Nigel on January 22, 2008, 11:28:32 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 22, 2008, 09:39:05 PM
After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.
Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL.
I don't get drunk around my kids, and outside of the ridiculously frequent festivities of the "holiday season", I don't get drunk that often. Also I think you are a complete fucking asshole for saying that.
You don't get drunk around your kids, but the effects of getting drunk stay with you,
while you're around your kids.
Hey, I was just fine with keeping with reasonable discussion, but then you brought in all this bullshit so I responded in kind.
:)
Broadcast entertainment causes cancer?
ARE YOU STONED?
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 23, 2008, 12:28:46 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 22, 2008, 11:28:32 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 22, 2008, 09:39:05 PM
After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.
Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL.
I don't get drunk around my kids, and outside of the ridiculously frequent festivities of the "holiday season", I don't get drunk that often. Also I think you are a complete fucking asshole for saying that.
You don't get drunk around your kids, but the effects of getting drunk stay with you, while you're around your kids.
Hey, I was just fine with keeping with reasonable discussion, but then you brought in all this bullshit so I responded in kind.
:)
Broadcast entertainment causes cancer?
ARE YOU STONED?
A: You disagree with my opinions on corporate commercial advertising so you react by accusing me of being a shitty parent? Wow, yeah, you totally made your point, you so win.
B: You are a seriously humorless stick in the mud, and it's not my fault if you've missed out on the "radio waves cause cancer" conspiracy theory and that reference went over your uptight little self-righteous pinhead.
Quote from: Nigel on January 23, 2008, 01:38:36 AM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 23, 2008, 12:28:46 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 22, 2008, 11:28:32 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 22, 2008, 09:39:05 PM
After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.
Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL.
I don't get drunk around my kids, and outside of the ridiculously frequent festivities of the "holiday season", I don't get drunk that often. Also I think you are a complete fucking asshole for saying that.
You don't get drunk around your kids, but the effects of getting drunk stay with you, while you're around your kids.
Hey, I was just fine with keeping with reasonable discussion, but then you brought in all this bullshit so I responded in kind.
:)
Broadcast entertainment causes cancer?
ARE YOU STONED?
A: You disagree with my opinions on corporate commercial advertising so you react by accusing me of being a shitty parent? Wow, yeah, you totally made your point, you so win.
B: You are a seriously humorless stick in the mud, and it's not my fault if you've missed out on the "radio waves cause cancer" conspiracy theory and that reference went over your uptight little self-righteous pinhead.
I never said you were a shitty parent.
It's certainly possible to be a good parent and get drunk occasionally.
Just like it's possible to be a good parent and let your kids watch some fucking Sponge Bob.
You vapid hippy.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 23, 2008, 02:23:13 AM
I never said you were a shitty parent.
You certainly hell of implied it. There are not a lot of ways to interpret "After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.
Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL."
That was a pretty frontal assault on my parenting, a cowardly low blow, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote
It's certainly possible to be a good parent and get drunk occasionally.
Just like it's possible to be a good parent and let your kids watch some fucking Sponge Bob.
You vapid hippy.
My kids watch all kinds of videos, including Spongebob, which I personally love. That doesn't have shit to do with my opinion of corporate advertising or the susceptibility of kids who have parents who, for whatever reason, don't screen what their kids watch or teach them critical thinking skills from an early age.
If that makes me a "vapid hippie" in your estimation, well, really, who cares?
Quote from: Nigel on January 23, 2008, 03:25:41 AM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 23, 2008, 02:23:13 AM
I never said you were a shitty parent.
You certainly hell of implied it. There are not a lot of ways to interpret "After all, broadcast entertainment is worse for your kids, than say, you getting drunk a lot.
Cause, you know, that won't rub off on them AT ALL."
That was a pretty frontal assault on my parenting, a cowardly low blow, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote
It's certainly possible to be a good parent and get drunk occasionally.
Just like it's possible to be a good parent and let your kids watch some fucking Sponge Bob.
You vapid hippy.
My kids watch all kinds of videos, including Spongebob, which I personally love. That doesn't have shit to do with my opinion of corporate advertising or the susceptibility of kids who have parents who, for whatever reason, don't screen what their kids watch or teach them critical thinking skills from an early age.
If that makes me a "vapid hippie" in your estimation, well, really, who cares?
I wasn't just responding to your facile argument against corporate advertising. I was suggesting you worry less about other people's children in a way that is guaranteed to shake you up. Nigel utopia, meet barstool.
:barstool:
You framed the discussion around something potentially harmful to children that parents fail to protect their kids from. That's a huge list and I can think of a hundred things that come before advertising, corporate or otherwise. Including getting drunk just a little too often. (Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and put that near the top). Which I'm
not saying you do. No one really knows but you and your kids.
The line between using intoxicants and abusing them isn't simple to identify. Nor is the point at which that starts to effect your ability to nurture your kids. It's a risky game to play that rightfully can land your children in somebody else's care.
But you sound much more careful and
extreme about something that has less potential to fuck them up. Or were you making blanket statements in the place of a clear position?
Corporate advertising is a red herring. That includes non-profit groups that you're probably a supporter of. It's the behavior of specific corporations actually
doing particularly nasty things which is the true issue. Even the worst of marketing tactics in advertising pales in comparison to say, agricultural corporations having connections to what amounts to slavery.
That generalized fear and hate of corporations without any actual evidence or intelligible argument is one of the more embarrassing things about living in Portland.
Another case of right track, wrong train.
Bring something coherent to the discussion or take my impossible-to-disprove potshots at your parenting in stride. I did insinuate a very nasty thing about you. But does it bother you more that my mean-spirited implication was mean, or that perhaps I have some points?
Quote from: Nigel on January 22, 2008, 11:32:15 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 22, 2008, 08:23:34 PM
You don't need to get rid of "broadcast entertainment". It certainly is a good idea to get kids to get off the couch and explore their world, but you don't need to eliminate it. They will still be subjected to bad ideas and influential messages. The trick is for them to have critical thinking skills and to be able to make sense of all that they are experiencing and taking in. Someone with sound judgement and thinking skills is not going to have any trouble understanding advertisements on television.
Yeah, but what if it causes cancer?
KYSFTB
IF WE MADE BROADCAST ENTERTAINMENT IMPOSSIBLE, MORE CHILDREN WOULD DIE ON SWINGSETS.
DO YOU WANT THEIR BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS?
\
:hashishim:
I think Netaungrot makes some very valid points, albeit through a sloppy use of barstool philosophy, but nonetheless, some of the points appear quite valid to me.
There are many, many issues in this world, some seem important to some people, others seem important to other people. The trick, as far as I can tell, seems to be keeping in mind that just because you 'hate corporations', or 'hate corporate farms' or whatever, your view may be a partial, incomplete view.
I work for a corporation. They regularly donate more to United Way than any other company in the city (sometimes the state). They started a Reading program for inner city schools, where employees are bussed to schools as tutors, during the work week (and they get paid). When Katrina hit, this corporation had emergency supplies ready and waiting for all of our employees affected. The corporation found all of them places to stay and made sure that every one of them was moved to a new store etc. in the area they moved to. The corporation heavily encourages participation in civic projects and even the CEO (one of the richest guys on the planet) gets involved, last year I saw him up a ladder painting a building at one of the local parks. We have production facilities for clothing in several small far eastern nations and while the laws in the area may be lax, the factories are held to US standards as far as safety etc.
Yet, we regularly have protesters standing outside our HQ.
They have a point, don't get me wrong... the Victoria's Secret catalog is printed on special High Gloss paper. While every other form of paper we use in the company is recycled, the Catalog, in order to hold the ink as they want, and provide the lush appearance of the catalog, they use paper made from Old Growth Forests in Canada. It's legal, but its not nice. So even though, the corporation does a very impressive job of helping the community and their employees (we are taken care of pretty well), the 'activists' only see one aspect of the corporation and thus damn it in their Coffeehouse Diatribes.
Of course, there are EVIL corporations... corporations that make a buck at the expense of customers, employees and anyone else they can scam off of. There are also non-evil corporations that may make decisions that don't jive with what's popularly held as RIGHT. These two groups are often seen as the same, when I think it may be wrong to consider them that way.
That being said, I personally have a struggle when I see the protesters, not to join them. I know that LimitedBrands is a pretty good company, they have good ethics overall etc... but the part of me that's a hippie still wants to scream at The Man for turning ancient trees into lingerie ads.
A bar in a Black Iron Prison, may be...
Also, Nigel... you are a drunk that beats her children and keeps them in cages while you engage in satanic rituals and orgies. It would be much safer for them if you would make them watch Hannah Montana and dress like Brit and Paris. ;-)
I dunno about you, Rat, but I find it much more difficult to masturbate to an old-growth forest than to a lingere catalog.
So, the point goes to the Major Corporation.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 23, 2008, 04:20:30 PM
Also, Nigel... you are a drunk that beats her children and keeps them in cages while you engage in satanic rituals and orgies. It would be much safer for them if you would make them watch Hannah Montana and dress like Brit and Paris. ;-)
(http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/2324/rambocat1ql9.gif)
Quote from: Nigel on January 22, 2008, 07:56:48 PM
If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.
um...
Quote from: Nigel on January 23, 2008, 03:25:41 AM
My kids watch all kinds of videos, including Spongebob, which I personally love.
lolwut?
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 23, 2008, 06:56:43 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 22, 2008, 07:56:48 PM
If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.
um...
Quote from: Nigel on January 23, 2008, 03:25:41 AM
My kids watch all kinds of videos, including Spongebob, which I personally love.
lolwut?
(http://sf.metblogs.com/archives/images/2007/03/pwn3d.jpg)
so....
when I owned my own business and was incorporated, I was evil?
never mind that I employed people and donated time, money, and food to my community...
the simple act of incorporating in order to avoid the insane taxes this state levies on sole proprietors made me evil?
boy, I'm glad my business went tits up, 6 people lost full-time jobs, and the town lost a community gathering place. I feel cured.
I am unsure of the happenings of this page, and it's fine and dandy that this has happened, I will probably read it and I have some already, I'll reiterate and frame this thread, it's an observation not a complaint (or is it idk) I do not expect anyone to think about this, I just sort of want to see the little things that happen when I post this.
Quote from: LMNO on January 23, 2008, 07:02:42 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 23, 2008, 06:56:43 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 22, 2008, 07:56:48 PM
If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.
um...
Quote from: Nigel on January 23, 2008, 03:25:41 AM
My kids watch all kinds of videos, including Spongebob, which I personally love.
lolwut?
(http://sf.metblogs.com/archives/images/2007/03/pwn3d.jpg)
I knew someone would make that erroneous connection. I'm not against recorded videos or movies. Videotapes and DVDs != broadcast. Duh.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 23, 2008, 04:20:30 PM
Also, Nigel... you are a drunk that beats her children and keeps them in cages while you engage in satanic rituals and orgies. It would be much safer for them if you would make them watch Hannah Montana and dress like Brit and Paris. ;-)
Thank you for having a sense of humor!
Net is permanently on my Enemies List though.
Quote from: Nigel on January 26, 2008, 09:05:03 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 23, 2008, 04:20:30 PM
Also, Nigel... you are a drunk that beats her children and keeps them in cages while you engage in satanic rituals and orgies. It would be much safer for them if you would make them watch Hannah Montana and dress like Brit and Paris. ;-)
Thank you for having a sense of humor!
Net is permanently on my Enemies List though.
(http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2191/omgonozzw0.gif)
ITT, a civil war in the PDX.
Someone needs to go update the Ally/Nemesis charts.
Yeah, where is that thing?
I constantly forget who I hate.
how can you forget that?
you hate everyone.
I had to come back to this thread to remember, I'm constantly afraid that I'm going to get mixed up and start screaming at ECH for calling me an unfit mother.
:lulz:
that's OK, I've got some more thumbs-up pics stashed in my arsenal.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 27, 2008, 07:31:12 PM
how can you forget that?
you hate everyone.
Oh yeah.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 27, 2008, 07:35:53 PM
that's OK, I've got some more thumbs-up pics stashed in my arsenal.
Those are starting to grow on me.
(http://www.symphony-homes.com/boy%20thumbs%20up.jpg)
It's like a different kind of neverending story.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on January 27, 2008, 07:35:53 PM
that's OK, I've got some more thumbs-up pics stashed in my arsenal.
sometimes i turn dyslectic just for the fun of it.
Quote from: Nigel on January 26, 2008, 09:03:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 23, 2008, 07:02:42 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 23, 2008, 06:56:43 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 22, 2008, 07:56:48 PM
If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.
um...
Quote from: Nigel on January 23, 2008, 03:25:41 AM
My kids watch all kinds of videos, including Spongebob, which I personally love.
lolwut?
(http://sf.metblogs.com/archives/images/2007/03/pwn3d.jpg)
I knew someone would make that erroneous connection. I'm not against recorded videos or movies. Videotapes and DVDs != broadcast. Duh.
Are you kidding? So many people today use Tivo and DVR's, so essentially, they are doing the same thing you are doing. Watching broadcast television at their convenience. I think you're splitting some hairs here.
Even if you aren't, you seem to be not arguing against the contenct of broadcast entertainment, just when it is consumed. You seem to be suggesting that videos are good because you can control when they are viewed.
You are aware of a fancy little device called the off button, correct?
Can someone bump the allly/nemesis chart?
Why would I help a maybe nemesis? :lol:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 28, 2008, 01:43:25 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 26, 2008, 09:03:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 23, 2008, 07:02:42 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 23, 2008, 06:56:43 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 22, 2008, 07:56:48 PM
If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.
um...
Quote from: Nigel on January 23, 2008, 03:25:41 AM
My kids watch all kinds of videos, including Spongebob, which I personally love.
lolwut?
(http://sf.metblogs.com/archives/images/2007/03/pwn3d.jpg)
I knew someone would make that erroneous connection. I'm not against recorded videos or movies. Videotapes and DVDs != broadcast. Duh.
Are you kidding? So many people today use Tivo and DVR's, so essentially, they are doing the same thing you are doing. Watching broadcast television at their convenience. I think you're splitting some hairs here.
Even if you aren't, you seem to be not arguing against the contenct of broadcast entertainment, just when it is consumed. You seem to be suggesting that videos are good because you can control when they are viewed.
You are aware of a fancy little device called the off button, correct?
You are completely unaware of my point, assuming I have one, and I am completely too lazy to restate it. Also i'm going to have a seizure shortly so I don't care.
There's missing the forest for the trees, Nigel.
And then there's missing the rotting oak over your house for the weeds that grow in its shade.
OMG! DANDELIONS!
\
(http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/742/windface2gi1.jpg)
/
MY CHILDRENS COULD CHOKE ON THEM!
Ok, here's what Nigel had to say since the beginning of the thread.
QuoteHm. I'm opposed to corporatism and the mind-control of the masses by giant corporate interests who want us fat and insecure so we'll buy whatever bullshit they're pimping in place of happiness, but as a person who has to sell their shit in order to live, without advertising in its most straightforward form, my children and I would starve.
The corporate advertising machine is bad. Advertising itself is just a tool.
Advertising is not inherently good or evil: it is just a tool.
I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, make anything people "need" except perhaps on some basic magpie level. However, I also don't try to convince them or brainwash them into believing that they "need" beads and marbles. I think that's where the corporate advertising machine crosses the line into evil... when it collaborates with the media of insecurity to brainwash people into believing they "need" things in order to make them happy, rather than merely showing them a product and hoping someone out there wants it.
[snipped: "intelligence is genetic", et al]
If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible. Actually; that's not true. It would be to invent teleportation, and after that it would be to invent a perfect battery. After that, to fly, and to be able to change sex at will. But somewhere after that it would definitely be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.
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.
Um....
SPONGEBOB "ADVERTISES" THE GAY LIFESTYLE!
OSHI-
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2008, 04:55:43 PM
It seems you have a problem with the advertising.
Which no one would really argue against.
Ahem.
Necessary Evil.
If I can't tell you about my new Nike Robo's, with UltraTech Shock Absorber, what right do you have to tell me about your band, or your position on campaign reform?
This post brought to you by Nike.
(http://www.modum.net/modumfik/images/logoer/nike_logo_just_do_it_horosontalt_c.JPG)
Advertising can be either awareness and informative, or it can be fraudulent and appeal to bias and emotion.
It's the latter I have a problem with.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 29, 2008, 05:00:45 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2008, 04:55:43 PM
It seems you have a problem with the advertising.
Which no one would really argue against.
Ahem.
Necessary Evil.
If I can't tell you about my new Nike Robo's, with UltraTech Shock Absorber, what right do you have to tell me about your band, or your position on campaign reform?
This post brought to you by Nike.
(http://www.modum.net/modumfik/images/logoer/nike_logo_just_do_it_horosontalt_c.JPG)
TITCM!
Advertising reminds me of free speech, in that respect.
Which I suppose it is merely an aspect of if you choose to see it that way.
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2008, 05:03:37 PM
Advertising can be either awareness and informative, or it can be fraudulent and appeal to bias and emotion.
It's the latter I have a problem with.
I don't have a problem with the latter. It seems to me its stupid people who suffer most from it.
What's bad for the stoopids is good for the lulz :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2008, 05:03:37 PM
Advertising can be either awareness and informative, or it can be fraudulent and appeal to bias and emotion.
It's the latter I have a problem with.
Precisely. Letting me know about a product I may like is perfectly fine in my book. Trying to use my mammalian insticts to make me purchase or form irrational attachments to it are another matter entirely.
Advertising certainly can have impacts for good, PSA's and for ill, (my earlier example of Rx drug advertising). If there is anything to do to combat the ills (if that is necessary) it's all about awareness. The more people understand how advertising works, the less it will work.
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2008, 05:03:37 PM
Advertising can be either awareness and informative, or it can be fraudulent and appeal to bias and emotion.
Again I ask: Who makes this judgement call? You? George Bush? Pauly Shore?
The point of free speech is that we get it all and we make the call. Fox News spins the shit out of every story to make heros out of who they like and villains out of the rest. Why aren't we all NeoCons? We see through it.
I don't trust anyone with the responsibility of telling me what I need to see, and what techniques my fragile mammalian psyche can't handle. Just give all to me and I'll decide for myself.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 29, 2008, 05:16:00 PM
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?
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
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.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on January 29, 2008, 07:01:15 PM
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.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 29, 2008, 06:39:04 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 29, 2008, 05:16:00 PM
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?
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.
Good argument, Rat,but:
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 29, 2008, 07:19:49 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2008, 07:21:55 PM
"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.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 29, 2008, 07:33:33 PM
Good argument, Rat,but:
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 29, 2008, 07:19:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 29, 2008, 07:42:36 PM
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.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 29, 2008, 07:39:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2008, 07:21:55 PM
"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.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 29, 2008, 07:48:42 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 29, 2008, 07:42:36 PM
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.
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?)
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 29, 2008, 08:01:56 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2008, 04:55:43 PM
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.
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).
Or maybe you were reinforcing my point. I don't know. I have a headache.
Um, either way, I'm sorry.
(but if anyone wants to genuinely worry that I might someday become World emperor and impose my irrational whims on the populace, that's cool)
Rat, you've swayed me with a reasonable argument.
I think the free market would benifit heavily with some reforms and guidelines.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 29, 2008, 08:00:34 PM
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!!!"
My need to discuss this out was because I interpreted the arguments laid out at first as:
"It's not fair that I had to pay 90$ for these shoes. They had purdy wimmens on the TV ad, how could I resist?"
Free Speech is nude girls playing volleyball and the word AXE at the end.
Abuse of that power is the sort of thing pictured above.
This was partly a semantic misunderstanding, but I do think I'm more aware of the abuses of power that take place on our screens.
Now: What's the plan?
Education.
If you watch it via a recording, you can start and stop it whenever you want, and skip the commercials. Also, despite the sketchiness of research claiming to link tv and radio waves to increases in cancer, I do find it a little dismaying that we have no choice in whether to be bathed in man-made radiation constantly for no purpose other than to give people the worlds next top model.
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 29, 2008, 05:06:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2008, 05:03:37 PM
Advertising can be either awareness and informative, or it can be fraudulent and appeal to bias and emotion.
It's the latter I have a problem with.
I don't have a problem with the latter. It seems to me its stupid people who suffer most from it.
What's bad for the stoopids is good for the lulz :lulz:
so if someone tries to fuck you over but they fail because you're not stupid, you won't be pissed off at them?
what if they severely annoy you while trying yet failing?
but i think the point has already been made by others so far.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 29, 2008, 08:15:32 PM
Rat, you've swayed me with a reasonable argument.
I think the free market would benifit heavily with some reforms and guidelines.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 29, 2008, 08:00:34 PM
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!!!"
My need to discuss this out was because I interpreted the arguments laid out at first as:
"It's not fair that I had to pay 90$ for these shoes. They had purdy wimmens on the TV ad, how could I resist?"
Free Speech is nude girls playing volleyball and the word AXE at the end.
Abuse of that power is the sort of thing pictured above.
This was partly a semantic misunderstanding, but I do think I'm more aware of the abuses of power that take place on our screens.
Now: What's the plan?
Well, I don't know. The first thing that would have to happen is a repeal of the Boston v. Bellotti decision where SCOTUS decided 5/4 that corporations should be protected as individual entities for the purpose of 'Free Speech' for the purpose of giving money to a campaign. This single decision is the touchstone that corporations use when arguing for 'Free Speech'.
Here's what Justice Rehnquist said when the decision was handed down (he dissented): "It might reasonably be concluded that those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere. Furthermore, it might be argued that liberties of political expression are not at all necessary to effectuate the purposes for which States permit commercial corporations to exist."
Corporations exist so that entrepreneurs can invest capital and gain returns with limited liability/responsibility... to paraphrase the webslinger's Uncle: "With Limited Liability Comes Limited Freedom".
So I would argue that some new document be ratified that's a Corporate Bill of Rights. I mean, not much of the actual Bill of Rights applies to Corporations, why would just one line? It's not like Corporations are free to keep and bear arms (unless they're Blackwater I guess), Corporations don't go to trial, Corporations aren't named in Search warrents (the individuals to be searched are), nor do corporations get a vote on the presidency.
So new Corporate Rights enumerated and limited to the express purpose for their existence (turning capital into profit with limited liability to the individuals).
Quote from: Cain on January 29, 2008, 04:57:05 PMUm....
SPONGEBOB "ADVERTISES" THE GAY LIFESTYLE!
(http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3831/roflbotcm5jlg6.jpg)
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 29, 2008, 08:15:32 PM
Rat, you've swayed me with a reasonable argument.
I think the free market would benifit heavily with some reforms and guidelines.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 29, 2008, 08:00:34 PM
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!!!"
My need to discuss this out was because I interpreted the arguments laid out at first as:
"It's not fair that I had to pay 90$ for these shoes. They had purdy wimmens on the TV ad, how could I resist?"
Free Speech is nude girls playing volleyball and the word AXE at the end.
Abuse of that power is the sort of thing pictured above.
This was partly a semantic misunderstanding, but I do think I'm more aware of the abuses of power that take place on our screens.
Now: What's the plan?
Hanging CEOs and exiling people with marketing degrees.
Once again, Cain gives an answer I can utilize.
Quote from: triple zero on January 29, 2008, 08:35:42 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 29, 2008, 04:57:05 PMUm....
SPONGEBOB "ADVERTISES" THE GAY LIFESTYLE!
(http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3831/roflbotcm5jlg6.jpg)
:fap:
Quote from: Nigel on January 29, 2008, 08:23:14 PM
If you watch it via a recording, you can start and stop it whenever you want, and skip the commercials. Also, despite the sketchiness of research claiming to link tv and radio waves to increases in cancer, I do find it a little dismaying that we have no choice in whether to be bathed in man-made radiation constantly for no purpose other than to give people the worlds next top model.
What do you mean you don't have a choice? You have the same choice you make when you watch a video. You choose whether or not to push the shiny button to actuate the visual entertainment.
"OFF" button motherfuckers, do you use it?
I watch TV on the internet. Does that make me a corporate shill or on the cutting edge of the revolution? I'm undecided personally, and want a second opinion.
Quote from: Cain on January 29, 2008, 08:38:40 PM
Quote from: hunter s.durden on January 29, 2008, 08:15:32 PM
Rat, you've swayed me with a reasonable argument.
I think the free market would benifit heavily with some reforms and guidelines.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 29, 2008, 08:00:34 PM
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!!!"
My need to discuss this out was because I interpreted the arguments laid out at first as:
"It's not fair that I had to pay 90$ for these shoes. They had purdy wimmens on the TV ad, how could I resist?"
Free Speech is nude girls playing volleyball and the word AXE at the end.
Abuse of that power is the sort of thing pictured above.
This was partly a semantic misunderstanding, but I do think I'm more aware of the abuses of power that take place on our screens.
Now: What's the plan?
Hanging CEOs and exiling people with marketing degrees.
Abrupt, but it works for me.
Quote from: Nigel on January 29, 2008, 08:23:14 PM
If you watch it via a recording, you can start and stop it whenever you want, and skip the commercials. Also, despite the sketchiness of research claiming to link tv and radio waves to increases in cancer, I do find it a little dismaying that we have no choice in whether to be bathed in man-made radiation constantly for no purpose other than to give people the worlds next top model.
Wait... you want to eliminate broadcast entertainment because you prefer the non-linearity, and some sketchy research that doesn't apply to broadband cable?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 29, 2008, 08:44:56 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 29, 2008, 08:23:14 PM
If you watch it via a recording, you can start and stop it whenever you want, and skip the commercials. Also, despite the sketchiness of research claiming to link tv and radio waves to increases in cancer, I do find it a little dismaying that we have no choice in whether to be bathed in man-made radiation constantly for no purpose other than to give people the worlds next top model.
What do you mean you don't have a choice? You have the same choice you make when you watch a video. You choose whether or not to push the shiny button to actuate the visual entertainment.
"OFF" button motherfuckers, do you use it?
The TV and radio waves are there whether you turn the TV on or not.
If you want to watch Spongebob you have to be in front of the TV when it's time to watch Spongebob, and it's interspersed with commercials. It's totally inconvenient.
There's a huge difference between "if I were World Emperor I would..." and "I am seriously lobbying for..."
If I were World Emperor, I would turn off the opiate of the masses and see what happens. In reality, though, I'm not lobbying for an end of TV, I just don't watch it.
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2008, 08:55:53 PM
Quote from: Nigel on January 29, 2008, 08:23:14 PM
If you watch it via a recording, you can start and stop it whenever you want, and skip the commercials. Also, despite the sketchiness of research claiming to link tv and radio waves to increases in cancer, I do find it a little dismaying that we have no choice in whether to be bathed in man-made radiation constantly for no purpose other than to give people the worlds next top model.
Wait... you want to eliminate broadcast entertainment because you prefer the non-linearity, and some sketchy research that doesn't apply to broadband cable?
Yes, exactly!
Wait, you just said you weren't looking for an end to TV, which is it?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 29, 2008, 09:04:52 PM
Wait, you just said you weren't looking for an end to TV, which is it?
The words of the foolish
and the words of the wise
are not far apart
in Discordian eyes.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 29, 2008, 09:04:52 PM
Wait, you just said you weren't looking for an end to TV, which is it?
I also want to build a three-level basement with hidden staircases below my house, but that doesn't mean this is something I would ever pursue.
If I was World Emperor I would totally have one, though.
Yeah, okay I'm out. Goodnight Cleveland.
Quote from: Cain on January 29, 2008, 08:46:42 PM
I watch TV on the internet. Does that make me a corporate shill or on the cutting edge of the revolution? I'm undecided personally, and want a second opinion.
I dunno but I bet the cancerous death rays are stronger through the intertubes.
Quote from: Cain on January 29, 2008, 09:26:17 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 29, 2008, 08:46:42 PM
I watch TV on the internet. Does that make me a corporate shill or on the cutting edge of the revolution? I'm undecided personally, and want a second opinion.
It makes ye a durned whippersnaper thinkin' that he's to gud to jis' sit down an' wa'ch th' ol' Boob Toob like normal fokes! Why, I can't even seem ta find Johnny Carson or Different Strokes on th' Internets. They ain't got Sanford and Son either.
Quote from: LMNO on January 29, 2008, 04:55:43 PM
Ok, here's what Nigel had to say since the beginning of the thread.
QuoteHm. I'm opposed to corporatism and the mind-control of the masses by giant corporate interests who want us fat and insecure so we'll buy whatever bullshit they're pimping in place of happiness, but as a person who has to sell their shit in order to live, without advertising in its most straightforward form, my children and I would starve.
The corporate advertising machine is bad. Advertising itself is just a tool.
Advertising is not inherently good or evil: it is just a tool.
I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, make anything people "need" except perhaps on some basic magpie level. However, I also don't try to convince them or brainwash them into believing that they "need" beads and marbles. I think that's where the corporate advertising machine crosses the line into evil... when it collaborates with the media of insecurity to brainwash people into believing they "need" things in order to make them happy, rather than merely showing them a product and hoping someone out there wants it.
[snipped: "intelligence is genetic", et al]
If I could do one thing, it would be to make broadcast entertainment impossible. Actually; that's not true. It would be to invent teleportation, and after that it would be to invent a perfect battery. After that, to fly, and to be able to change sex at will. But somewhere after that it would definitely be to make broadcast entertainment impossible.
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.
Hold up Alphapance, I would argue that a blanket dismissal of corporate advertising is eating the menu.
Calling it "brainwashing" and "mind control" also is a tard move that trivializes people who actually have experienced manipulation that savage.
Passive persuasive media ≠ live coercive behavior. That equivalence is an idiotic appeal to emotion and ignorance that fails very fucking hard. But who cares what corporations are actually doing in the world, whether that's gouging people for medicine they need, or raping 3rd world natural resources, LETS GET ALL UPPITY ABOUT THEIR FUCKING ADS!
:retard:
That line of rhetoric moves the frame of discussion from actual behavior that could possibly result in justice, to a shrill tin-foil inspired bitch session about how eeeV0L advertising is like, sooo mean and totally poopy.
Yeah there's some sleazy shit out there, but you can't demonstrate that it's due to the advertiser's pushing it more than the idiots demanding it. That's what marketing is all about—giving people exactly what they want. If people's values changed to something more fulfilling, you'd see that reflected in the advertising targeted at them.
I know it's easier to believe people are poor witless schmucks who get assraped by big throbbing teams of slick marketers glowing with hypnotic auras and attack unicr0ns. But the horrible truth is that people
enjoy it when marketers
nail them.
Give me one example of corporate advertising that is anywhere near as injurious as the live business practices some engage in. If it's as bad you think you should have no trouble substantiating your claims.
This entire thread has become a massive toolbox.
Has anyone actually said, or even inferred, that they find slavery, exploitation and various crimes less offensive than advertising?
Or are most people not talking about it because the thread and discussion is about advertising?
BTW:
Quote from: Cain on January 29, 2008, 09:26:17 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 29, 2008, 08:46:42 PM
I watch TV on the internet. Does that make me a corporate shill or on the cutting edge of the revolution? I'm undecided personally, and want a second opinion.
I suppose it depends on which revolution. If it's one that slavishly depends on technology that cannot be easily manufacured by non-corporate means, well...
Quote from: Cain on January 30, 2008, 02:59:19 PM
Has anyone actually said, or even inferred, that they find slavery, exploitation and various crimes less offensive than advertising?
Or are most people not talking about it because the thread and discussion is about advertising?
I think a lot of people really strongly believe advertising is brainwashing.
If it is, then comparing advertising to things as brutal as brainwashing would be futile and someone would say they are of the same order of magnitude.
But it's clearly not. It's fraud at worst and art at best.
Brainwashing isn't always brutal.
Just sayin.
Quote from: LMNO on January 30, 2008, 05:15:41 PM
Brainwashing isn't always brutal.
Just sayin.
Then maybe you could use a term that doesn't wildly exaggerate the nature of what you're talking about.
Pleasing to notes I hasn't actulaay used such terms to descibe advertising kthnxby
Also, brainwashing happens all the time... to mosbunal of us. At least, that's how it appears to me.
Brainwashing, in modern parlance is usually associated with the CIA or cults. However, that really only covers a subset of techniques used in brainwashing. Brainwashing doesn't require sleep deprivation or drugs or getting ones balls chopped etc.... Those are just shortcuts, quick and dirty brainwashing hacks if you will. The most insidious sorts of brainwashing are the ones that take 20 years to complete and no one ever suspects a thing. Orwellian "newspeak " is a good example of such things. Our current administration did really well at brainwashing lots of folks post-911, though fortunately it appears that the conditioning is wearing off. Every baby gets brainwashed in its first five years by its own dear Mommy and Daddy.
Maybe.
So, who's watching the SuperBowl this weekend?
Quote from: LMNO on January 30, 2008, 05:26:37 PM
Pleasing to notes I hasn't actulaay used such terms to descibe advertising kthnxby
Better yet, you'll just make semantic conflations about it that imply agreement with the usage I described.
:roll:
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 30, 2008, 05:34:37 PM
Also, brainwashing happens all the time... to mosbunal of us. At least, that's how it appears to me.
Brainwashing, in modern parlance is usually associated with the CIA or cults. However, that really only covers a subset of techniques used in brainwashing. Brainwashing doesn't require sleep deprivation or drugs or getting ones balls chopped etc.... Those are just shortcuts, quick and dirty brainwashing hacks if you will. The most insidious sorts of brainwashing are the ones that take 20 years to complete and no one ever suspects a thing. Orwellian "newspeak " is a good example of such things. Our current administration did really well at brainwashing lots of folks post-911, though fortunately it appears that the conditioning is wearing off. Every baby gets brainwashed in its first five years by its own dear Mommy and Daddy.
Maybe.
Define brainwashing so that there are parameters for a communication to NOT be described as brainwashing and we'll talk.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 30, 2008, 05:38:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 30, 2008, 05:26:37 PM
Pleasing to notes I hasn't actulaay used such terms to descibe advertising kthnxby
Better yet, you'll just make semantic conflations about it that imply agreement with the usage I described.
:roll:
You say I implied, I say you assumed.
Quote from: LMNO on January 30, 2008, 05:53:33 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 30, 2008, 05:38:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 30, 2008, 05:26:37 PM
Pleasing to notes I hasn't actulaay used such terms to descibe advertising kthnxby
Better yet, you'll just make semantic conflations about it that imply agreement with the usage I described.
:roll:
You say I implied, I say you assumed.
You could clarify what you meant if I have a mistaken impression, but instead you're just being a dick.
Congratulations.
This is PD.com, after all.
And as far as clarifying, I first said, "appeals to emotion and bias".
Later on, I specifically said I was quoting Nigel because she was too lazy to do it herself.
Don't go blaming me because your reading comprehension isn't worth shit.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 30, 2008, 05:40:51 PMDefine brainwashing so that there are parameters for a communication to NOT be described as brainwashing and we'll talk.
because otherwise we wouldn't be talking, but brainwashing eachother!
Quote from: LMNO on January 30, 2008, 06:01:24 PM
This is PD.com, after all.
And as far as clarifying, I first said, "appeals to emotion and bias".
Later on, I specifically said I was quoting Nigel because she was too lazy to do it herself.
Don't go blaming me because your reading comprehension isn't worth shit.
:lol:
Touched a nerve have I?
You still haven't clarified what you just wrote today, jackass.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 30, 2008, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 30, 2008, 02:59:19 PM
Has anyone actually said, or even inferred, that they find slavery, exploitation and various crimes less offensive than advertising?
Or are most people not talking about it because the thread and discussion is about advertising?
I think a lot of people really strongly believe advertising is brainwashing.
If it is, then comparing advertising to things as brutal as brainwashing would be futile and someone would say they are of the same order of magnitude.
But it's clearly not. It's fraud at worst and art at best.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 30, 2008, 05:19:53 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 30, 2008, 05:15:41 PM
Brainwashing isn't always brutal.
Just sayin.
Then maybe you could use a term that doesn't wildly exaggerate the nature of what you're talking about.
1) I have clearly pointed out that I am not one of those "a lot of people" who believe advertising is brainwashing.
2) I then pointed out that your associating "brutal" with "brainwashing" might not be entirely accurate.
3) Then you ask me to use another word for a term
I don't even use in the first place.
Please point your slingshot of useless indignation elswhere.
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a29/RWHN/hippo20side.jpg)
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 30, 2008, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 30, 2008, 05:34:37 PM
Also, brainwashing happens all the time... to mosbunal of us. At least, that's how it appears to me.
Brainwashing, in modern parlance is usually associated with the CIA or cults. However, that really only covers a subset of techniques used in brainwashing. Brainwashing doesn't require sleep deprivation or drugs or getting ones balls chopped etc.... Those are just shortcuts, quick and dirty brainwashing hacks if you will. The most insidious sorts of brainwashing are the ones that take 20 years to complete and no one ever suspects a thing. Orwellian "newspeak " is a good example of such things. Our current administration did really well at brainwashing lots of folks post-911, though fortunately it appears that the conditioning is wearing off. Every baby gets brainwashed in its first five years by its own dear Mommy and Daddy.
Maybe.
Define brainwashing so that there are parameters for a communication to NOT be described as brainwashing and we'll talk.
Brainwashing usually references any effort to instill specific attitudes and beliefs in an individual, usually in a forcible or indirect manner. Brainwashing can be direct like Koresh's techniques which involved hours of no sleep pr eating etc. or it can be much more subtle, like propaganda. The commonality, is that the individual doesn't get much choice in consciously accepting the new beliefs, usually the beliefs are inserted through manipulating the Robot.
Brainwashing is to conversation as Hacking is to computer programming.
Quote from: LMNO on January 30, 2008, 06:14:16 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 30, 2008, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 30, 2008, 02:59:19 PM
Has anyone actually said, or even inferred, that they find slavery, exploitation and various crimes less offensive than advertising?
Or are most people not talking about it because the thread and discussion is about advertising?
I think a lot of people really strongly believe advertising is brainwashing.
If it is, then comparing advertising to things as brutal as brainwashing would be futile and someone would say they are of the same order of magnitude.
But it's clearly not. It's fraud at worst and art at best.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 30, 2008, 05:19:53 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 30, 2008, 05:15:41 PM
Brainwashing isn't always brutal.
Just sayin.
Then maybe you could use a term that doesn't wildly exaggerate the nature of what you're talking about.
1) I have clearly pointed out that I am not one of those "a lot of people" who believe advertising is brainwashing.
2) I then pointed out that your associating "brutal" with "brainwashing" might not be entirely accurate.
3) Then you ask me to use another word for a term I don't even use in the first place.
Please point your slingshot of useless indignation elswhere.
1) People change their minds without notification. I go with whatever they express most recently.
2) Associating brutal with rape, child abuse, and slavery also might not necessarily be accurate. And in those situations I use a more accurate word.
3)"Brainwashing isn't always brutal." - LMNO
"Then you ask me to use another word for a term I don't even use in the first place." - LMNO
Is my reading comprehension failing me again or do I smell prawnage of the self variety?
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 30, 2008, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 30, 2008, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 30, 2008, 05:34:37 PM
Also, brainwashing happens all the time... to mosbunal of us. At least, that's how it appears to me.
Brainwashing, in modern parlance is usually associated with the CIA or cults. However, that really only covers a subset of techniques used in brainwashing. Brainwashing doesn't require sleep deprivation or drugs or getting ones balls chopped etc.... Those are just shortcuts, quick and dirty brainwashing hacks if you will. The most insidious sorts of brainwashing are the ones that take 20 years to complete and no one ever suspects a thing. Orwellian "newspeak " is a good example of such things. Our current administration did really well at brainwashing lots of folks post-911, though fortunately it appears that the conditioning is wearing off. Every baby gets brainwashed in its first five years by its own dear Mommy and Daddy.
Maybe.
Define brainwashing so that there are parameters for a communication to NOT be described as brainwashing and we'll talk.
Brainwashing usually references any effort to instill specific attitudes and beliefs in an individual, usually in a forcible or indirect manner. Brainwashing can be direct like Koresh's techniques which involved hours of no sleep pr eating etc. or it can be much more subtle, like propaganda. The commonality, is that the individual doesn't get much choice in consciously accepting the new beliefs, usually the beliefs are inserted through manipulating the Robot.
Brainwashing is to conversation as Hacking is to computer programming.
Nobody uses brainwashing to mean anything positive.
While hacking does have negative connotations in most peoples minds, there is a significant group of people who regularly use it to mean otherwise. If there is a group of people out there using brainwashing to mean something desirable, I'd certainly like to know.
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 30, 2008, 07:56:43 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 30, 2008, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 30, 2008, 05:40:51 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 30, 2008, 05:34:37 PM
Also, brainwashing happens all the time... to mosbunal of us. At least, that's how it appears to me.
Brainwashing, in modern parlance is usually associated with the CIA or cults. However, that really only covers a subset of techniques used in brainwashing. Brainwashing doesn't require sleep deprivation or drugs or getting ones balls chopped etc.... Those are just shortcuts, quick and dirty brainwashing hacks if you will. The most insidious sorts of brainwashing are the ones that take 20 years to complete and no one ever suspects a thing. Orwellian "newspeak " is a good example of such things. Our current administration did really well at brainwashing lots of folks post-911, though fortunately it appears that the conditioning is wearing off. Every baby gets brainwashed in its first five years by its own dear Mommy and Daddy.
Maybe.
Define brainwashing so that there are parameters for a communication to NOT be described as brainwashing and we'll talk.
Brainwashing usually references any effort to instill specific attitudes and beliefs in an individual, usually in a forcible or indirect manner. Brainwashing can be direct like Koresh's techniques which involved hours of no sleep pr eating etc. or it can be much more subtle, like propaganda. The commonality, is that the individual doesn't get much choice in consciously accepting the new beliefs, usually the beliefs are inserted through manipulating the Robot.
Brainwashing is to conversation as Hacking is to computer programming.
Nobody uses brainwashing to mean anything positive.
While hacking does have negative connotations in most peoples minds, there is a significant group of people who regularly use it to mean otherwise. If there is a group of people out there using brainwashing to mean something desirable, I'd certainly like to know.
Well, I used hacker in the more modern sense which is what we traditionally called a cracker or black hat, not hacker in the sense of a super-skilled computer geek that knows how to tweak systems to get them to do what he wants (or in the sense of a guy that makes furniture with an ax).
I don't think anyone said the word desirable, I think the word was Brutal (unless my reading comprehension is failing me ;-) ). Many brainwashing techniques are not brutal (even if we stay away from the argument that all religions, political parties, etc use brainwashing techniques), hell the good ones aren't even noticeable. Look at how unbrutal the brainwashing of many US citizens was in 2002 when propaganda, FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) and manipulation of how data was presented made them believe (and some still do) that not only was Saddam harboring WMD's (which are still MIA), but that he was directly involved in 9/11.
I don't consider government obfuscation and misdirection to mean brainwashing.
I know a few metric shit-tons of ways to powerfully manipulate people's minds. I notice layers and layers of them in ads and especially political speeches.
But, none of them override a person's will, or are coercive in any way. They are quite effective, but only insofar as they line up with a person's world view and values. The problem isn't that the government is spewing hogshit, it's that people shovel it down their gullet without so much as a blink or don't care that they're covered in it.
There's a distinction to be made between deception, misdirection, and brainwashing. The former two are not necessarily coercive, the latter must be or it's not brainwashing.
If you don't believe a random internet asshat like me, ask some professionals. See what any psychiatrist, clinical psychologist, hypnotherapist, NLP trainer, cognitive behavioral therapist, copywriter, neuro-marketer, or anyone else who makes their bread from persuasive manipulation about the nature of brainwashing.
I guarantee you their response will boil down to "coercive persuasion."
[not in asshat mode]
I'm not sure what you mean by "coercive", or "overriding a person's will".
Just so we're on solid ground, do we agree that in both BrainWashing (BW) and Persuasive Manipulation (PM):
Before it happens, the subject thinks A, and after it happens, the subject thinks B.
I understand a line must be drawn, but I suppose I'm not sure where you're drawing it.
PM = after it happens, the subject is more likely to think B.
BW = after it happens, the subject is unable to think anything other than B.
Yeah, but that's the result; I think Net was talking about the process.
Ok, I'll compromise.
PM appears as BW in some, but not all instances.
Most, but not all BW involves some sort of PM.
PM usually involves surreptitious means and covert messages.
BW may also include physically coercive measures.
PM usually involves hacking the brain via signals and symbol manipulation.
BW may also involve hacking the brain through exploiting the physical hardware.
But, overall, I think the goal seems quite similar. The entity in both cases appears, to me, as trying to place their ideas/beliefs into the minds of others without their consent or awareness.
Or, are those differences due to the fact that BW in the sense we tend to think of it, may be a personal and direct attack on a person (and thus customized brainwashing), whereas PM may be more common in terms of Mass Brainwashing.
Mass Brainwashing would probably be tricky, since it wouldn't necessarily work on everyone (assumption: since not all forms of brainwashing seem to works on all people). Thus maybe it would require a much less obvious means and message. Maybe.
Yeah but it's degrees of scale innit
The brainwashing process is well documented. It involves some pretty hardcore shit, like sensory deprivation, torture and the use of hallucinogenic/psychoactive drugs. among other things.
PM is generally regarded to be more gently administered and, as such, a less effective form of advertising.
Someone who's been subliminally manipulated through media channels (if they conform to the target demographic) will be statistically more likely to behave or think a certain way whereas someone who has been brainwashed will, in all likelihood, kill or maim anyone who tries to prevent them behaving or thinking this way.
The downside of brainwashing, from the marketeers point of view, is that it defies a whole bunch of geneva conventions and is also very expensive to administer.
Otherwise we'd probably all be getting abducted, injected and tortured, on a daily basis by most of the major corporations. :tinfoilhat:
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 31, 2008, 03:11:46 PM
Yeah but it's degrees of scale innit
The brainwashing process is well documented. It involves some pretty hardcore shit, like sensory deprivation, torture and the use of hallucinogenic/psychoactive drugs. among other things.
PM is generally regarded to be more gently administered and, as such, a less effective form of advertising.
Someone who's been subliminally manipulated through media channels (if they conform to the target demographic) will be statistically more likely to behave or think a certain way whereas someone who has been brainwashed will, in all likelihood, kill or maim anyone who tries to prevent them behaving or thinking this way.
The downside of brainwashing, from the marketeers point of view, is that it defies a whole bunch of geneva conventions and is also very expensive to administer.
Otherwise we'd probably all be getting abducted, injected and tortured, on a daily basis by most of the major corporations. :tinfoilhat:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I dunno. I grew up in a system which doesn't do sensory deprivation or anything of the sort (unless I've blocked it out! On Noes!!!) and upon reflection, I would say that in many respects it may be quite similar to brainwashing, or at least group conditioning (GC) in a way much stronger than persuasion, I think.
So maybe we're looking at a scale that begins with basic advertising foo, like cute girls on a beer commercial (G&B) and goes to brainwashing
G&B-----PM-----GC-----BW
Obviously, I'm still missing something though since there aren't five points on that line. Damn.
You missed "profit", of course...
G&B-----PM-----GC-----BW-----PROFIT!
You're right, LMNO!!!
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2008, 02:50:13 PM
[not in asshat mode]
I'm not sure what you mean by "coercive", or "overriding a person's will".
Just so we're on solid ground, do we agree that in both BrainWashing (BW) and Persuasive Manipulation (PM):
Before it happens, the subject thinks A, and after it happens, the subject thinks B.
I understand a line must be drawn, but I suppose I'm not sure where you're drawing it.
I agree to that in some cases.
But, everything I've read suggests that coercive persuasion is
less effective than noncoercive means. So A may never even get to B.
In general I agree with Rat as well. I just make a sharper distinction in that brainwashing must be coercive and a live interaction between two people. The emphasis is on actual behaviors. Advertising highly depends on what the individual wants to do and there is no evidence that even the best TV ads can compel someone to do something against their will.
Also, advertisers DO want your consent, but before they can get that YOU need to give them your awareness.
I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that messages in ads can avoid the scrutiny of your values, identity and will. If you're thinking of subliminals, I can link you to the current thinking on them. The best that they can do is the priming effect. Advertisers largely abandoned subliminals for public backlash and that other methods are simply more effective.
How exactly do you think ads can covertly get you? Have you ever been "got" or know someone who has? What evidence are you basing these beliefs on?
Here's one that got me.
I was in a bar, and wanted a beer, and they only had American Lager: Bud, Miller, Rolling Rock, and PBR.
I know for a fact that all these beers taste the same (blind taste tests in college), and yet I immediately ranked them in my head: PBR, RR, Miller, Bud. Why? Because of the advertising, and what kind of lifetyles the ads presented.
So I said, "fuck this," and ordered a Gin and Tonic. But not Tanqueray. Whoops, here we go again...
Quote from: Netaungrot on January 31, 2008, 08:43:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2008, 02:50:13 PM
[not in asshat mode]
I'm not sure what you mean by "coercive", or "overriding a person's will".
Just so we're on solid ground, do we agree that in both BrainWashing (BW) and Persuasive Manipulation (PM):
Before it happens, the subject thinks A, and after it happens, the subject thinks B.
I understand a line must be drawn, but I suppose I'm not sure where you're drawing it.
I agree to that in some cases.
But, everything I've read suggests that coercive persuasion is less effective than noncoercive means. So A may never even get to B.
In general I agree with Rat as well. I just make a sharper distinction in that brainwashing must be coercive and a live interaction between two people. The emphasis is on actual behaviors. Advertising highly depends on what the individual wants to do and there is no evidence that even the best TV ads can compel someone to do something against their will.
Having been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I disagree that brainwashing must be one on one and coercive.
Quote
Also, advertisers DO want your consent, but before they can get that YOU need to give them your awareness.
That seems true of anything we're talking about here though, doesn't it? Ads, propaganda, persuasion or brainwashing. It all requires the awareness of the target.
Quote
I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that messages in ads can avoid the scrutiny of your values, identity and will.
Through the same means that memebombs, mindfucks and all those other games work... it's not that difficult to hack the human software.
Quote
If you're thinking of subliminals, I can link you to the current thinking on them. The best that they can do is the priming effect. Advertisers largely abandoned subliminals for public backlash and that other methods are simply more effective.
I agree with this.
Quote
How exactly do you think ads can covertly get you? Have you ever been "got" or know someone who has? What evidence are you basing these beliefs on?
By covert, I mean that they are covert in their means of persuasion. Product placement is covert, an ad that has beautiful beaches, beautiful women and nothing to do with the car insurance they flash for a second at the end... is covert. Using known psychological handles to manipulate people is covert, fake grass roots fans of various products etc all covert.
Now, I don't think that television ads will take over your brain and make you kill the President (the news on the other hand may do that). I think that there is a large area of "the manipulation of the minds of others without their consent" from slight manipulation("you NEED our product because you have a small penis") to serious manipulation ("Here's a gun and a copy of 'Catcher in the Rye'").
Marketing Depts may not be MKUltra, but neither do they appear wholly powerless and benign.
Quote from: LMNO on January 31, 2008, 08:52:17 PM
Here's one that got me.
I was in a bar, and wanted a beer, and they only had American Lager: Bud, Miller, Rolling Rock, and PBR.
I know for a fact that all these beers taste the same (blind taste tests in college), and yet I immediately ranked them in my head: PBR, RR, Miller, Bud. Why? Because of the advertising, and what kind of lifetyles the ads presented.
So I said, "fuck this," and ordered a Gin and Tonic. But not Tanqueray. Whoops, here we go again...
Can you show that these have more to do with advertising rather than a reflection of
your particular social schemata you've built over years of observation?
Rat:
1 - At the very least it has to involve a brainwasher and a brainwashee, in most cases it's a group and one target.
2 - Some seem to be suggesting a process that requires neither awareness or consent for recorded advertisements to dramatically impact their thoughts. These people need to read less science fiction.
3 - Memebombs, mindfucks, and so on don't compel you to do anything differently in your life. That still is up to the observer of the content.
4 - :mrgreen:
5 - Again, I think this is a misuse of a term. All of these things are clear for anyone to see, not covert. Fake grass roots people have to be identified as actors or it's fraud.
"Known psychological handles"? As in, conformity, beautiful things, and dietary drives? If that is covert, than everyone is James Bond.
What is the mechanism that allows people's minds to be changed by a recorded ad without their consent to the change? What evidence do you have to support this claim?
I have a large mountain of evidence that strongly suggests otherwise.
The only way to coerce people into new beliefs is with live interactions between bipeds.
Ok Netaungrot,
I am gonna take a mulligan, declare myself a Cosmic Schmuck and go do more research. I think I may have overstepped the usage of the word and probably confused myself in the assumption.
Fnord.
Also, I still think my life as a JW included brainwashing and didn't include stress positions or anything of the sort... just a constant steady mantra of memes from birth onward...
but maybe that's something else.
i think the argument is loaded with doublespeak.
brainwashing isn't a bad term. it's a blunt one. colloquially, it is meant as One Thing, a priori, because that is the simple quick reference for the term.
i feel similarly on this topic as George Carlin feels about the term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, v. "Shell Shock."
well, truth be told, what most people acquire is more accurately called "PTSD", but it removes the pain associated with the term that Shell Shock has. Even if the person didn't get shelled into a nervous breakdown from mortar fire.
what happens is the brain gets "washed" of patterns, and insulated with new ones. this can happen shortly with drastic means, or gradually with subtle means.
already tl;dr, i know...and redundant.
in short, communication, ultimately, is the larger whole, and "brainwashing" and "advertising" are terms associated with coercive communication. "instilling" and "rearing" and "instruction" are terms associated with positive communication.
shit, we're basically a group think brainwashing machine. we're just designed to fuck with the other cogs around us. double speak.
Quote from: Prater Festwo on February 05, 2008, 05:56:02 AM
i think the argument is loaded with doublespeak.
brainwashing isn't a bad term. it's a blunt one. colloquially, it is meant as One Thing, a priori, because that is the simple quick reference for the term.
i feel similarly on this topic as George Carlin feels about the term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, v. "Shell Shock."
well, truth be told, what most people acquire is more accurately called "PTSD", but it removes the pain associated with the term that Shell Shock has. Even if the person didn't get shelled into a nervous breakdown from mortar fire.
what happens is the brain gets "washed" of patterns, and insulated with new ones. this can happen shortly with drastic means, or gradually with subtle means.
already tl;dr, i know...and redundant.
in short, communication, ultimately, is the larger whole, and "brainwashing" and "advertising" are terms associated with coercive communication. "instilling" and "rearing" and "instruction" are terms associated with positive communication.
shit, we're basically a group think brainwashing machine. we're just designed to fuck with the other cogs around us. double speak.
That's sort of how I felt, but I think I'm losing the argument.
Quote from: Prater Festwo on February 05, 2008, 05:56:02 AM
i think the argument is loaded with doublespeak.
brainwashing isn't a bad term. it's a blunt one. colloquially, it is meant as One Thing, a priori, because that is the simple quick reference for the term.
i feel similarly on this topic as George Carlin feels about the term Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, v. "Shell Shock."
well, truth be told, what most people acquire is more accurately called "PTSD", but it removes the pain associated with the term that Shell Shock has. Even if the person didn't get shelled into a nervous breakdown from mortar fire.
what happens is the brain gets "washed" of patterns, and insulated with new ones. this can happen shortly with drastic means, or gradually with subtle means.
already tl;dr, i know...and redundant.
in short, communication, ultimately, is the larger whole, and "brainwashing" and "advertising" are terms associated with coercive communication. "instilling" and "rearing" and "instruction" are terms associated with positive communication.
shit, we're basically a group think brainwashing machine. we're just designed to fuck with the other cogs around us. double speak.
1 - Who's argument is loaded with doublespeak? Which terms are doublespeak?
2 - No term is bad, it's all in how it is used.
3/4 - What most people acquire
from what? I don't see the relevance here.
5/6 - Yes, redundant.
7 - People associate their identity with ideas that come into their head. This doesn't make the association valid. If you think advertising is indeed coercive I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion, how you are defining your terms, and what evidence you can supply to support your claims.
8 - Who is a group think brainwashing machine? Humans? Maybe, but that's a different can of worms.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 05, 2008, 02:08:57 AM
Ok Netaungrot,
I am gonna take a mulligan, declare myself a Cosmic Schmuck and go do more research. I think I may have overstepped the usage of the word and probably confused myself in the assumption.
Fnord.
Also, I still think my life as a JW included brainwashing and didn't include stress positions or anything of the sort... just a constant steady mantra of memes from birth onward...
but maybe that's something else.
Maybe. I certainly can't make that call.
Parenting seems to require some amount of coercion, so when does it become brainwashing? I'd say it would have to involve extreme social isolation and emotional abuse for the purpose of aligning a child's beliefs with the parent's.
There's also a distinction between brainwashing and internalization. One can't call their parent's behavior brainwashing merely because they absorbed a lot of it growing up and later disagreed with it. There has to be a particular abusive element tied to the beliefs as well.
So if I were to say that I spent my entire time in school without any afterschool activities, no school friends (since they weren't allowed to come to my house, nor I to theirs), had ONLY Jehovah's Witnesses to hang out with, wasn't allowed to examine other religions or philosophies outside the context of learning how to beat then in debate... and inculcated with the belief that deviation from The Truth (what JW's call their belief system) would expose us to Satan and demonic possesion... would that start to qualify?
Yeah, that's brainwashing in my book.
That kind of experience is just not comparable to the piddling appeals of advertising.
i'm just saying that it's a semantic argument, and little else.
and the bits about PTSD we an analogy. and the psychological trauma that causes a person such emotional problems is well documented, and can stem from a whole host of traumas that a person, for one reason or another, in some cases can't handle.
as for the rest, i don't offer shit for evidence, because it's my opinion.
Quote from: Prater Festwo on February 07, 2008, 04:10:26 AM
i'm just saying that it's a semantic argument, and little else.
and the bits about PTSD we an analogy. and the psychological trauma that causes a person such emotional problems is well documented, and can stem from a whole host of traumas that a person, for one reason or another, in some cases can't handle.
as for the rest, i don't offer shit for evidence, because it's my opinion.
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/308/thumbscr4.png)
hey!
that's MY schtick.
I was just busting balls, dude. I didn't want you to pull the pic.
ECH,
was actually hoping that meme would spread
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on February 10, 2008, 02:15:21 PM
I was just busting balls, dude. I didn't want you to pull the pic.
ECH,
was actually hoping that meme would spread
Well, the gynormity of it was a bit unnecessary, that's all I changed.
oh, musta been my browser acting retarded then.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1011/897432378_f50331dc60_m.jpg)