Dumb Political Correctness

If that commercial offended you then you may be a "snowflake" in this instance.

PH- I don't know how large the % is but feel it's likey larger than either you or I would be willing to admit. Essentially this is a Be Better message.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
The problem is that when we're getting bombarded by messages that masculinity is toxic - and people say "n
ot all of it" but can't really tell you what is masculine that's positive other than spinning what we typically consider "feminine" qualities - it's easy to read between the lines on some of the comments.
Click to expand...

Whether we're talking about actual politicians, pseudo-intellectuals, pop culture icons, or virtue signaling corporate idiots, the political Left gets a tremendous amount of mileage out of being and to say, "I don't agree with x (unpopular position)," without ever having to explain how their position differs from x. This is a good example. We're not against all masculinity - just every facet of masculinity that isn't actually feminine.

Of course, many Democratic politicians do this with open borders. Virtually every Democrat will deny that he supports open borders, but how many have been called upon to specify a class of immigrants to whom they would deny entry? How about limits? If every Mexican citizen wanted to emigrate to the United States, would Beto O'Rourke let them all in? If not, why not, and how many would he admit? How would they answer if actually pressed on the issue? Of course, we'll never know, because they'll never be asked.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Whether we're talking about actual politicians, pseudo-intellectuals, pop culture icons, or virtue signaling corporate idiots, the political Left gets a tremendous amount of mileage out of being and to say, "I don't agree with x (unpopular position)," without ever having to explain how their position differs from x. This is a good example. We're not against all masculinity - just every facet of masculinity that isn't actually feminine.

Of course, many Democratic politicians do this with open borders. Virtually every Democrat will deny that he supports open borders, but how many have been called upon to specify a class of immigrants to whom they would deny entry? How about limits? If every Mexican citizen wanted to emigrate to the United States, would Beto O'Rourke let them all in? If not, why not, and how many would he admit? How would they answer if actually pressed on the issue? Of course, we'll never know, because they'll never be asked.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have always said that if you ask three questions about a Lib's policies you will discover they are very superficial, ignorant of history, and not supported by empirical evidence.
 
iatrogenic said:
Exactly. I have always said that if you ask three questions about a Lib's policies you will discover they are very superficial, ignorant of history, and not supported by empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
When Obama was told that raising the capital gains tax likely won’t increase federal income, he said it ought to be done for “fairness”.
 
Seattle Husker said:
If that commercial offended you then you may be a "snowflake" in this instance.
Click to expand...

My issue is that this company has no idea who I am and therefore hasn't earned the credibility to lecture me about my own conduct or what I condone from other men. After all, I'm willing to bet that Gillette has had to pay out more in sex discrimination claims than I have. If anything, I should be lecturing them.

Is the ad "offensive?" No. Is it stupid, misguided, lack perspective, and demonstrate warped priorities? Yes.
 
mchammer said:
When Obama was told that raising the capital gains tax likely won’t increase federal income, he said it ought to be done for “fairness”.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. What is the definition of "fairness" or of "fare"? These have definitions of course, but can have different meanings when used or applied by individuals. To whom is an act or decision "fare"? Is it a negotiated compromise, or merely a one sided view of a preferred outcome with no real equitable resolution?
 
Mr. Deez said:
My issue is that this company has no idea who I am and therefore hasn't earned the credibility to lecture me about my own conduct or what I condone from other men. After all, I'm willing to bet that Gillette has had to pay out more in sex discrimination claims than I have. If anything, I should be lecturing them.

Is the ad "offensive?" No. Is it stupid, misguided, lack perspective, and demonstrate warped priorities? Yes.
Click to expand...

I translated their target audience as those that would still cat call a women walking down the street or solve an argument with a fist fight or bully a peer. I disagree that we should tie those sentiments to "masculinity" but rather simply being a good person.

I suspect many Gillette employees are also in the target audience. It's a Boston based company with a heavy blue collar workforce. Think leaders in that company may also be trying to change the culture? From a corporate perspective, exposeing your commitment to a value system publicly helps enforce it internally, like posting fat pictures of yourself on social media as you lose weight. As someone who has experienced good Corp cultures and bad, the good ones believe in the values top to bottom, inside and out. Starbucks was on the good side.

Virtue signaling is a hot button for you. I suspect that may draw your most ire.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
Of course, many Democratic politicians do this with open borders. Virtually every Democrat will deny that he supports open borders, but how many have been called upon to specify a class of immigrants to whom they would deny entry?
Click to expand...

This, and a functional media would actually ask that question.

"Speaker Pelosi, you've said you're for border security, and that the Democratic party does not believe in open borders (despite all the t-shirts, bumper stickers, and slogans that your party chairman likes to throw around that say you do). Can you clarify which migrants that enter the country illegally you would like to deport? Under what circumstances is deportation the correct response, and in what circumstance is it inappropriate?

Follow up question: If deportation is the answer in this case, to what lengths should we go to ensure that this is carried out? Immediate deportation? Do you believe that "catch and release" is an appropriate response? At what point in the process should deportation take place?

Just a clarification: When you say "migrants who commit criminal acts..." are you referring to those who enter and THEN commit these acts? Or people who have committed them in their own country? Or people who belong to associations or groups which are engaged in these acts? People with sympathies or close ties to those groups? And what exactly are these "criminal acts?"

Oh... sorry, one more question if you will: Do you believe that it is acceptable and lawful for American citizens to harbor and assist people who enter illegally who meet your qualifications for deportation? Is it acceptable for government officials to actively block or impede the deportation process?

SORRY... SORRY... My mistake, I missed this one in my notes: You have called a border wall "immoral," and yet you say that you are opposed to open borders, and believe that immigrants should come in legally or not at all. Since a border wall does not, in fact, deter legal immigration, and would only impact people entering illegally, can you please explain why this wall should be considered immoral and "against our values?" Which values does it violate?

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen. Big fan. Honestly. Love your show."
 
Seattle Husker said:
I translated their target audience as those that would still cat call a women qalking down the street or solve an argument with a fist fight or bully a peer.
Click to expand...

Again... what percentage of men are we talking about that actually do this? You can speculate all you want, but your speculation is self serving. "Higher than we think" is a meaningless response. I think it's pretty low. I know literally not a single man that catcalls women on the street, picks fights with people or bullies peers. And I don't know many men who are not considered masculine by anyone's definition.

So again... what is the appropriate percentage of the population that is guilty of an action to where I can then generalize to the entire population and say "you are guilty of this and you need to do better."
 
Seattle Husker said:
I translated their target audience as those that would still cat call a women qalking down the street or solve an argument with a fist fight or bully a peer.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that, and even if they were really appealing to catcallers, fighters, and bullies, they don't have the credibility to do that either. These aren't counselors, clergymen, or teachers. They're marketing hacks for a company that sells razor blades. I don't think they care, and I don't think those men care what a razor blade company thinks. If I was one of those guys, I wouldn't stop because the people who sell me razors think it's uncool (or more accurately, pretend to care about it to get positive PR).

Could there be an internal angle? Maybe. Neither of us can possibly know that.

Seattle Husker said:
I disagree that ww should tie those sentiments to "masculinity" but rather simply being a good person.
Click to expand...

Gillette is simply following the politically correct model. They didn't make it up. Others did, and their agenda is broader than the catcallers, fighters, and bullies.

Seattle Husker said:
Virtue signaling is a hot button for you. I suspect that may draw your most ire.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan for two reasons. First, I think it's largely phony. These are business decisions, not true statements of morality, and they shouldn't be. Gillette's job is to sell razors, not stomp out "toxic masculinity." Second, I think we politicize way too much, and corporate virtue signaling adds to that. We're running out of non-political zones, and just from a cultural and social standpoint, that's a bad thing.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Again... what percentage of men are we talking about that actually do this? You can speculate all you want, but your speculation is self serving. "Higher than we think" is a meaningless response. I think it's pretty low. I know literally not a single man that catcalls women on the street, picks fights with people or bullies peers. And I don't know many men who are not considered masculine by anyone's definition.

So again... what is the appropriate percentage of the population that is guilty of an action to where I can then generalize to the entire population and say "you are guilty of this and you need to do better."
Click to expand...

Yet sexual harassment claims are settled every day in corporate america. Teen bullying has actually increased in some states the last 2 years. You tell me what an acceptable % is for this behavior?
 
Mr. Deez said:
I don't buy that, and even if they were really appealing to catcallers, fighters, and bullies, they don't have the credibility to do that either. These aren't counselors, clergymen, or teachers. They're marketing hacks for a company that sells razor blades. I don't think they care, and I don't think those men care what a razor blade company thinks. If I was one of those guys, I wouldn't stop because the people who sell me razors think it's uncool (or more accurately, pretend to care about it to get positive PR).

Could there be an internal angle? Maybe. Neither of us can possibly know that.



Gillette is simply following the politically correct model. They didn't make it up. Others did, and their agenda is broader than the catcallers, fighters, and bullies.



I'm not a fan for two reasons. First, I think it's largely phony. These are business decisions, not true statements of morality, and they shouldn't be. Gillette's job is to sell razors, not stomp out "toxic masculinity." Second, I think we politicize way too much, and corporate virtue signaling adds to that. We're running out of non-political zones, and just from a cultural and social standpoint, that's a bad thing.
Click to expand...

You assume this is simply marketing spin. I favor an assumption that this is likely a larger program for the company. We both could be right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
As someone who has experienced good Corp cultures and bad, the good ones believe in the values top to bottom, inside and out.
Click to expand...

Same here. The bad ones I experienced had upper management had core values for the worker bees that didn't apply to them. And the BoD was not about to to support change in that area since company profits were very good and they picked up a quick $25K per month for sitting on the Board and attending one or two meetings each month.
 
Mr D
"The idea that women and men are the same or should be treated the same is a secular, Western legal construct. If someone wants the secular model, then don't agree to a Sharia tribunal."
Good points and very logical.
It seems like this is the exact reason sharia is not compatible with our law,
IDK Can a civil court grant a divorce to a woman married in a islamic ceremony?
 
I've not read the entire exchange but are we talking about Sharia Law being a voluntary value system of sorts or a special set of laws that exist and can be enforced in court?
 
I don't know anyone since high school that does any of the things discussed in the Gillette ad. Even those same guys quit once they grew up.

The target audience of the commercial is 100% SJWs who shave. Gillette is trying to sell razors and this is how they think they can distinguish themselves from the other toxically masculine razor suppliers. Even enough left wing men like the commercial they will stop using Bic. I expect they actually lose sales as a result.
 
Seattle Husker said:
You tell me what an acceptable % is for this behavior?
Click to expand...

Who's talking about what's an acceptable percentage of people who engage in it? No one. Zero percentage is the acceptable percentage of people who are abusing women. No one is arguing that point.

What IS being argued, and what you keep ducking, is that if you have a behavioral issue that i dunno... let's say 30 percent (which is pretty high IMO) of people who are sexually harassing women, is that enough of a percentage that you can now lecture THE ENTIRE POPULATION and tell them that they are ALL responsible. (And yes... that is the message. If you're a white male, you're part of the problem, and you need to work to fix it. That's not hyperbole, that is the actual narrative coming out of every major media outlet out there except for Fox. And btw, minority men are not part of the problem, and I know that because I noticed that the only minority men in that video were shown doing positive things, creating a positive example for all the white men who are shown being disrespectful and abusive. Maybe I missed one - I'm going off memory here so I could be wrong.)

So... are 30 percent of men rapists? Potential rapists that haven't had the opportunity? Sexual harassers? Man-splainers? Man-spreaders? Arrogant? Too masculine for our culture? Not an "ally?" Note that ALL of these things get thrown in under the same umbrella: "Men need to do better." So what if I treat women with respect, but I'm not going to lecture my fellow man because he's taking up too much space on the bus seat? Or because he interrupted a female colleague in a meeting? (I mean, beyond what I'd do if he did it to anyone else.) Or if one time I did a double-take when a gorgeous woman walked by, and I didn't ask her permission before looking at her? Every single one of those things is under the heading of "Men need to do better."

The message is that it doesn't matter if YOU are doing the right thing personally. MEN are still doing all these things, therefore YOU are still doing them and YOU need to do better.

So are you going to stop harassing women? Seriously? Answer the question.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
Who's talking about what's an acceptable percentage of people who engage in it? No one. Zero percentage is the acceptable percentage of people who are abusing women. No one is arguing that point.

What IS being argued, and what you keep ducking, is that if you have a behavioral issue that i dunno... let's say 30 percent (which is pretty high IMO) of people who are sexually harassing women, is that enough of a percentage that you can now lecture THE ENTIRE POPULATION and tell them that they are ALL responsible. (And yes... that is the message. If you're a white male, you're part of the problem, and you need to work to fix it. That's not hyperbole, that is the actual narrative coming out of every major media outlet out there except for Fox. And btw, minority men are not part of the problem, and I know that because I noticed that the only minority men in that video were shown doing positive things, creating a positive example for all the white men who are shown being disrespectful and abusive. Maybe I missed one - I'm going off memory here so I could be wrong.)

So... are 30 percent of men rapists? Potential rapists that haven't had the opportunity? Sexual harassers? Man-splainers? Man-spreaders? Arrogant? Too masculine for our culture? Not an "ally?" Note that ALL of these things get thrown in under the same umbrella: "Men need to do better." So what if I treat women with respect, but I'm not going to lecture my fellow man because he's taking up too much space on the bus seat? Or because he interrupted a female colleague in a meeting? (I mean, beyond what I'd do if he did it to anyone else.) Or if one time I did a double-take when a gorgeous woman walked by, and I didn't ask her permission before looking at her? Every single one of those things is under the heading of "Men need to do better."

The message is that it doesn't matter if YOU are doing the right thing personally. MEN are still doing all these things, therefore YOU are still doing them and YOU need to do better.

So are you going to stop harassing women? Seriously? Answer the question.
Click to expand...


The difference in perspectives is that while we both watch the video you think "why are they lecturing me" while I watch it and think "doesn't apply to me, hopefully others hear the message" like a Public Service Announcement.
 
Last edited:
Mona
Here is a Huffpo article that gives a decent overview
Sharia Law In The USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It | HuffPost

One of the main issues for many is islamic position on women. Women do not have the same status as men. For instance a man has unrestricted right to divorce his wife whenever he likes. This right is so absolute that he may exercise it either himself or may delegate his right to another person. In other words, instead of pronouncing the Talaq himself he may give his right of divorce to anyone else.

A Muslim wife has no independent right of divorce. She cannot divorce her husband whenever she likes, as her husband may do. "
 
Horn6721 said:
It seems like this is the exact reason sharia is not compatible with our law,
Click to expand...

It's not compatible with our laws, and it's not intended to be. The idea is for people to submit their dispute for resolution by an expert in accordance with their values and beliefs. Can it be forced? No, but can the parties consent to it like they would any other contract or marital agreement? Yes.

Horn6721 said:
IDK Can a civil court grant a divorce to a woman married in a islamic ceremony?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Sharia Law as described seems like non-binding arbitration. It's like counseling that most churches prefer in the US. I can ask the Catholic Church to annul my marriage but we still have to file the divorce papers with the courts.
 
The Gillette ad is so bizarre. Public service announcement from a ******* razor company? Screw them. The neanderthals who do the behavior they are begging to stop will not see this POS ad and have an epiphany and change for the better.

Waste of money. Their razors suck anyway, so they lost my business years ago because of that.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Sharia Law as described seems like non-binding arbitration. It's like counseling that most churches prefer in the US. I can ask the Catholic Church to annul my marriage but we still have to file the divorce papers with the courts.
Click to expand...

If there's a written agreement to follow the Sharia tribunal's decision, it could be binding within the normal limits on binding arbitration. Obviously, duress (the argument often raised by Sharia tribunal opponents) would be sufficient to void any Sharia tribunal agreement.
 
Seattle Husker said:
The difference in perspectives is that while we both watch the video you think "why are they lecturing me" while I watch it and think "doesn't apply to me, hopefully others hear the message" like a Public Service Announcement.
Click to expand...

I get your point here, but suppose they changed the ad a bit and singled out some other group such as black men - showed them committing lots of violent crime, making babies with women they aren't married to and abandoning them, doing drugs, etc. and said they needed to "do better." Would the reaction be the same?

Of course, most black men don't do these things, but some do. Would we defend the ad by saying, "how much violent crime, neglected children, and drug abuse is ok?" Would people view it as more of a PSA? No. People would be horrified at an ad that perpetuates stereotypes and maligns an entire group for the acts of its worst citizens.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I get your point here, but suppose they changed the ad a bit and singled out some other group such as black men - showed them committing lots of violent crime, making babies with women they aren't married to and abandoning them, doing drugs, etc. and said they needed to "do better." Would the reaction be the same?

Of course, most black men don't do these things, but some do. Would we defend the ad by saying, "how much violent crime, neglected children, and drug abuse is ok?" Would people view it as more of a PSA? No. People would be horrified at an ad that perpetuates stereotypes and maligns an entire group for the acts of its worst citizens.
Click to expand...

It is highly ironic that the Left tries to pin the Nazi tag on Trump and his supporters when the facts are that a certain class of people in this country are being blamed for all our ills (proof be damned) just like Hitler blamed the Jews.

I have a black friend who told me about having the "police talk" with his kids. Their view is a policeman is especially dangerous to black people. Fair enough. But in this day and age I am now mentally affected by the entire white privilege campaign and have ramped up my cautionary tales to my 22 year old son. We talk about race fairly often; i.e. don't joke about it, don't think like that, etc because we are now a target to lose our jobs or other forms of punishment by the zealots.

I believe that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top