Gillette get political...

[The Dangerous Elk]

1 3 5 7 9

[BrassMan]

neil1jnr said:

selym said:

desolate said:

In what way can it be viewed as anti-white?

I presume as it is regarded as anti-man and all the 'bad' men in the advert are white, someone has made the connection between the two. It's a bit tenuous.....

Tenuous? Not really, you managed to make the link, so it isn't a non-issue. In fact I'd assume it's done that way on purpose.

I used to know a few people who were unhealthily obsessed with race, sex, sexuality etc. I got sucked into noticing Intersectionality until I scrubbed them out of my life about three years ago. I'm much better off without them.

The question here is, do I continue with Wilkinson and remain an edge lord, or move to Gillette and become a soy boy?

[colin_p]

BrassMan said:

The question here is, do I continue with Wilkinson and remain an edge lord, or move to Gillette and become a soy boy?

Neither.

Get a single edged safety razor like your Granadad or Great Grandad or ven your Dad (depending how old you are) probably used to use.

Once you have bought the actual razor, the blades cost pennies and using one makes shaving less of a chore.

[ChemicalChaos]

A well written rebuttal here which does make a damn good point..... 99% of us already know bad thighs are bad and don't need patronising and tarring with the same brush as the 1%. They too know the bad things are bad, but do them because they are s and no amount of woke adverts or metoo campaigns will change that

http://dlvr.it/QwqwTR

[V8 Fettler]

ChemicalChaos said:

A well written rebuttal here which does make a damn good point..... 99% of us already know bad thighs are bad and don't need patronising and tarring with the same brush as the 1%. They too know the bad things are bad, but do them because they are s and no amount of woke adverts or metoo campaigns will change that

http://dlvr.it/QwqwTR

Bad thighs?

[Evanivitch]

ChemicalChaos said:

A well written rebuttal here which does make a damn good point..... 99% of us already know bad thighs are bad and don't need patronising and tarring with the same brush as the 1%. They too know the bad things are bad, but do them because they are s and no amount of woke adverts or metoo campaigns will change that

http://dlvr.it/QwqwTR

Well he's missed the point of MeToo by a country mile.

MeToo came about because there have been several prominent examples of people, usually men, usually in positions of power, sexually harassing people (not just women). The issue is that for a single person to make a complaint it becomes a my word versus their word, and the harasser is able to use their influence and wealth to discredit any isolated incident.

However, it is much more difficult to dismiss the accusations of multiple accounts as not only does it become more expensive but also because trends may start to appear in the evidence provided that suggest this isn't just a case of malicious accusation.

The difficulty here is that there may never be enough evidence to prosecute a single incident in isolation, which is how the law works. And so the person undergoes trial by social media, and wider society, rather than through the proper legal process. This is unsettling as it is not how justice should operate.

[Monty Python]

Watch this from 7:11, where there is an interview with one of the top brass from Proctor & Gamble:

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

It's clear what their view of the world is.

[steveatesh]

Evanivitch said:

Well he's missed the point of MeToo by a country mile.

MeToo came about because there have been several prominent examples of people, usually men, usually in positions of power, sexually harassing people (not just women). The issue is that for a single person to make a complaint it becomes a my word versus their word, and the harasser is able to use their influence and wealth to discredit any isolated incident.

However, it is much more difficult to dismiss the accusations of multiple accounts as not only does it become more expensive but also because trends may start to appear in the evidence provided that suggest this isn't just a case of malicious accusation.

The difficulty here is that there may never be enough evidence to prosecute a single incident in isolation, which is how the law works. And so the person undergoes trial by social media, and wider society, rather than through the proper legal process. This is unsettling as it is not how justice should operate.

Personally I thought this paragraph summed up the Me Too movement very well. I’ve read numerous other articles which claim that’s ultimately the movement has been bad for women especially in the workplace (although most of those articles were American about American workplaces).

“MeToo lumps every allegation of sexual misdeeds together and does not allow them to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This detracts from the seriousness of the really bad misdeeds and lends undue seriousness to minor misdeeds, and makes it difficult to distinguish between the two. Also, MeToo categorically prohibits any discussion of a woman's potential role in creating sexually inappropriate situations. Even less does it allow discussion of false allegations, which is a real and serious problem. Also, MeToo simplifies a complex issue, making innocent damsels out of women and cartoonish villains out of men. Sometimes women really are innocent and men really are villains. There can be grey areas, though, and there can be situations where the roles are entirely reversed. MeToo will not acknowledge that fact or make any allowances for it. There are other problems I could highlight, but you get the point”.

[anonymous-user]

ChemicalChaos said:

A well written rebuttal here which does make a damn good point..... 99% of us already know bad thighs are bad and don't need patronising and tarring with the same brush as the 1%. They too know the bad things are bad, but do them because they are s and no amount of woke adverts or metoo campaigns will change that

http://dlvr.it/QwqwTR

Is that true though?

According to this article a shocking 32% of male students said they would have sex with a woman against her will (rape but the study didn’t call it that)

Call it rape and it falls to 13.6%. That’s shockingly bad, and kind of puts paid to the idea of it just being ‘1%’

For starters this highlights the fact that ‘I know not to rape’ doesn’t hold firm for a large number of men, because describe it without using the r word and they say they will do it, then the proportion falls when you call it what it is.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11362...

[Evanivitch]

steveatesh said:

“MeToo lumps every allegation of sexual misdeeds together and does not allow them to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This detracts from the seriousness of the really bad misdeeds and lends undue seriousness to minor misdeeds, and makes it difficult to distinguish between the two.

Fallen at the first hurdle.

Making broad statements about the seriousness of the offences is a fantastic way of dismissing a long history of non-rape accusations as mere inconveniences to those affected.

The reality is that people that have spoken up about supposedly minor offences have seen their careers and characters attacked. And yet the offender continues to do it again and again.

[Halb]

cookie118 said:

ChemicalChaos said:

A well written rebuttal here which does make a damn good point..... 99% of us already know bad thighs are bad and don't need patronising and tarring with the same brush as the 1%. They too know the bad things are bad, but do them because they are s and no amount of woke adverts or metoo campaigns will change that

http://dlvr.it/QwqwTR

Is that true though?

[b]According to this article a shocking 32% of male students said they would have sex with a woman against her will (rape but the study didn’t call it that)

Call it rape and it falls to 13.6%. That’s shockingly bad, and kind of puts paid to the idea of it just being ‘1%’[/b]

For starters this highlights the fact that ‘I know not to rape’ doesn’t hold firm for a large number of men, because describe it without using the r word and they say they will do it, then the proportion falls when you call it what it is.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11362...

THat goes a bit beyond shocking.

[Salmonofdoubt]

How many of us would have even been aware of this advert without the 'media' coverage of the 'backlash' and subsequent discussion?

I hadn't given a Gillette a second thought for years, now I've remembered their products. The advert isn't great but I don't see where all of the issues people have stem from. It's basically an advert saying don't be a dick.

[Not-The-Messiah]

Halb said:

cookie118 said:

ChemicalChaos said:

A well written rebuttal here which does make a damn good point..... 99% of us already know bad thighs are bad and don't need patronising and tarring with the same brush as the 1%. They too know the bad things are bad, but do them because they are s and no amount of woke adverts or metoo campaigns will change that

http://dlvr.it/QwqwTR

Is that true though?

[b]According to this article a shocking 32% of male students said they would have sex with a woman against her will (rape but the study didn’t call it that)

Call it rape and it falls to 13.6%. That’s shockingly bad, and kind of puts paid to the idea of it just being ‘1%’[/b]

For starters this highlights the fact that ‘I know not to rape’ doesn’t hold firm for a large number of men, because describe it without using the r word and they say they will do it, then the proportion falls when you call it what it is.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11362...

THat goes a bit beyond shocking.

Agreed a shocking bit of propaganda research at it's best. It's nonsense and misleading actively designed to come out with the most shocking results.

They ask hypothetical meaningless questions and wouldn't be surprised in a leading way.

If they asked people "If you could commit murder with no consequences would you?" You would think the vast majority of people would say no. But all depends on how you think about it. I would say yes in all honesty, if I was to come across someone who had just raped and murder a young child especially if they were close to me personally. I would want to be able to murder that person without consequences. And I would expect lots and lots of others would to.

All the research shows is that people have base instinctive socially negative desires which as always been the case and always will be.

[daddy cool]

Salmonofdoubt said:

I don't see where all of the issues people have stem from. It's basically an advert saying don't be a dick.

And I would hope at this point you would ask yourself "do I look to adverts to provide my moral compass in life?"

[TurbosSuck]

Salmonofdoubt said:

How many of us would have even been aware of this advert without the 'media' coverage of the 'backlash' and subsequent discussion?

I hadn't given a Gillette a second thought for years, now I've remembered their products. The advert isn't great but I don't see where all of the issues people have stem from. It's basically an advert saying don't be a dick.

I think the issue is that it says: 'Men, don't be a dick.'

[selym]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Agreed a shocking bit of propaganda research at it's best. It's nonsense and misleading actively designed to come out with the most shocking results.

They ask hypothetical meaningless questions and wouldn't be surprised in a leading way.

If they asked people "If you could commit murder with no consequences would you?" You would think the vast majority of people would say no. But all depends on how you think about it. I would say yes in all honesty, if I was to come across someone who had just raped and murder a young child especially if they were close to me personally. I would want to be able to murder that person without consequences. And I would expect lots and lots of others would to.

All the research shows is that people have base instinctive socially negative desires which as always been the case and always will be.

I did skim read the study after it was linked here (had to use another link or pay $51), interested to understand how the survey was written. I couldn't find the questions actually asked, only the results and statistics that fell out of it.

[j_4m]

Salmonofdoubt said:

How many of us would have even been aware of this advert without the 'media' coverage of the 'backlash' and subsequent discussion?

I hadn't given a Gillette a second thought for years, now I've remembered their products. The advert isn't great but I don't see where all of the issues people have stem from. It's basically an advert saying don't be a dick.

It's more that it implies the default state of men is to be dicks, and that we have all have to drag ourselves into the warm progressive light of tolerance by buying expensive razors.

[Salmonofdoubt]

daddy cool said:

And I would hope at this point you would ask yourself "do I look to adverts to provide my moral compass in life?"

But I already don't so where is the issue.

To the other replies it doesn't imply men are dicks by default. It implies some men can be dicks and by being dicks it sets an example to others that it's ok to be one.

The fact that it says men don't be dicks is because it's not aimed at women.

[daddy cool]

Salmonofdoubt said:

daddy cool said:

And I would hope at this point you would ask yourself "do I look to adverts to provide my moral compass in life?"

But I already don't so where is the issue.

I know you don't. In fact, I doubt anyone does.
So if we agree adverts do not provide any kind of moral guidance, we ask "what is the point of it?"
Answers: Profit, bandwagon jumping, and virtue-signalling.

The advert would have cost hundred of thousands of dollars. If you buy their blades, part of the price you pay funds this kind of guff.

[amusingduck]

Salmonofdoubt said:

daddy cool said:

And I would hope at this point you would ask yourself "do I look to adverts to provide my moral compass in life?"

But I already don't so where is the issue.

To the other replies it doesn't imply men are dicks by default. It implies some men can be dicks and by being dicks it sets an example to others that it's ok to be one.

The fact that it says men don't be dicks is because it's not aimed at women.

The narrator says, right after the MeToo stuff and the men behaving badly:

To say the right thing, to act the right way, some already are. He emphasises "some".

How does that imply that some men can be dicks? Doesn't that imply the opposite - that some men aren't dicks?