New Gillette commercial "not an indictment on manhood"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

tstorm823:

Saelune:
Trump ran on building a wall because he is a racist.

He kicked trans people out of the military cause he hates LGBT people.

He rapes women cause he is a chauvinistic scumbag.

Trump is only terrible. There is LITERALLY no redeeming qualities to Trump AT ALL.

He doesn't drink.

Hitler didn't smoke. Well, not cigarettes anyways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_HL0wiK4Zc

Egard Watches has got in on it now.

I'll leave you to decide which ad is "better," but while it's fair to say that Egard wouldn't have made the ad if not for Gillette, the two aren't really saying the same thing. If taken in isolation, the Gillette ad highlights the negative effects of turning a blind eye to harassment and bullying. The Egard ad is highlighting areas where men are at the receiving end of disadvantage. Both are valid in my eye.

Of course, the real question to "what is a man?" is "a miserable little pile of secrets," but I'm guessing that the people at Gillette and Egard may not know much about Castlevania. 0_0

Hawki:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_HL0wiK4Zc

Egard Watches has got in on it now.

I'll leave you to decide which ad is "better," but while it's fair to say that Egard wouldn't have made the ad if not for Gillette, the two aren't really saying the same thing. If taken in isolation, the Gillette ad highlights the negative effects of turning a blind eye to harassment and bullying. The Egard ad is highlighting areas where men are at the receiving end of disadvantage. Both are valid in my eye.

Of course, the real question to "what is a man?" is "a miserable little pile of secrets," but I'm guessing that the people at Gillette and Egard may not know much about Castlevania. 0_0

So the new ad is stating that Men are causing other men to be killed at work, murdered, commit suicide and Homeless, because that is the reality of those statistics. Hopefully the person who created that realizes that if men step up and change toxic masculinity then these things can be changed as well. The problem is the ad is not directly addressing the cause of these fatalities in order to try and reduce them.

I find it rather distasteful to show people senselessly being killed and thank them for being victims instead of actually address what is killing them and try to put a stop to it. Trying to make it stop rather than thank them should be the goal here right? You have to address the causes, which this ad does not do.

The scary thing is that it is like they think it is a man's duty to be killed, by thanking them "for their service as a man" which is a terrible message to send. We need to be addressing the causes rather than promoting it as "stoic" when the deaths are completely unnecessary.

Lil devils x:

That is just it, I took images of specific dance types that are frequently church sponsored events here, even in the " bible belt".
Not only do the churches here condone this, they even provide the venue.

Churches all over the US have sponsored these very dances and events that include these moves:
http://www.crosswaypa.org/swing-dancing-event
https://www.gottaswing.com/calendarold/2018/10/10/classes-at-westminster-church-sw-washington-dc-d6crt-ndft3
https://www.gottaswing.com/calendarold/2018/10/25/new-classes-start-at-evangelical-reformed-church-frederick-ct5f2-88khr-xl3ra-jmesw-kx626-aaysg-3wgte-xaaes-jk3al-4dfrt-y2b62
https://www.cambridgeshire.net/activity/lindy-hop-dance-class/105479.aspx#.XE39hFVKjDc
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/olympic-figure-skating-star-hailed-as-example-for-catholics

The first " hop" dance and figure skating event I ever attended were both provided by Churches.

You are correct in that Black dancers have done such, swing dance moves originated from black dancers, however, due to how segregated society was at the time, these were considered " white dances" because they were introduced to mainstream white society by white dancers who had learned the moves from black dancers. As long as white people were not aware of it's origins at the time it was okay. There is a long history of " whitewashing" black dancers, singers, poets, and others and accredit it to white people to allow it to be considered acceptable. People mistakenly thought this was a part of " white culture" when in fact it originated in black culture. As long as they were oblivious to this, they accepted it.

https://www.phillymag.com/news/2012/03/01/american-bandstand-didnt-allow-blacks/
https://theswingdancecompany.co.uk/history/
https://www.salon.com/2014/05/17/elvis_wasnt_the_first/

The History goes deeper than that though. Those who were aware of the origins ALSO are aware of the racist promotion of square dancing.
https://mic.com/articles/186892/how-square-dancing-became-a-weapon-of-white-supremacy-against-an-anti-semitic-jazz-dance-conspiracy#.zyakHmUep

There is far more to it than whether or not a dance is too sexy or not. American mainstream culture is far from being the the world leader in Liberal culture. There are plenty who are far more liberal than the US, the US is viewed as pretty " backwards" by many of my European friends.

I guess I should have never underestimated the hypocrisy of it all. I don't know whether to laugh or slowly shake my head stone faced. Echoing my previously posted sentiment, the over reliance on adhering to labels has a lot to do with it. A lot of people probably still don't even know what what they believe, but the label is what sticks.

Lil devils x:

hanselthecaretaker:
Not sure if this been posted yet, what to think really of it as they?re obviously baiting, but it does kinda call out Gillete on their more hidden motives.

I hope you are joking in taking anything said in that parody seriously.

As ObsidianJones Already covered here:
https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1056588-New-Gillette-commercial-not-an-indictment-on-manhood?page=5#24286945

THIS is what they were saying, not some silly parody. The ad literally had a clip of Sexual assault victim Terry Crews.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/gillette-ad-urge-men-rid-toxic-masculinity-metoo/story?id=60386387

Was the Rock claiming to hate American men because he spoke out against Toxic masculinity?
https://me.askmen.com/health-and-sports-news/1104302/article/the-rock-talks-mental-health-and-toxic-masculinity

Is Dwayne Johnson telling everyone to vote Democrat? He was a registered Republican but is now an Independent, not a Democrat.

Hell even the term Toxic Masculinity was coined by a man, Shepherd Bliss, trying to help men, not attack them during an early men's movement. Silly parodies playing on people's ignorance are not what the ad was about. Far from it, it just takes people willing to take the time to actually understand what they were looking at there to figure it out.

It is honestly a bit comical that some think " toxic masculinity" is against men, or some sort of feminist creation, when in fact, it was created by men to help men and further men's causes. Since when were sexual abuse and violence partisan issues?

I never said I took it seriously as it's a parody, but I highly doubt Gillette did this out of the goodness of their hearts. It was politically motivated. I really don't care one way or another though, as it clearly won't change anything judging by the reception. I fact it might have made things worse because it apparently pissed a lot of people off. Its only accomplishment might've been revealing where the social barometer needle still lies.

Saelune:

tstorm823:

Trump is only terrible. There is LITERALLY no redeeming qualities to Trump AT ALL.

He doesn't drink.

Hitler didn't smoke. Well, not cigarettes anyways.[/quote]

erttheking:

Whoopdie-doo. I don't drink. I don't see people lining up to vote me to be President.

Come on! It's funny! Saelune says he has no redeeming qualities, Donald Trump says he has one redeeming quality. That's funny.

hanselthecaretaker:

Lil devils x:

hanselthecaretaker:
Not sure if this been posted yet, what to think really of it as they?re obviously baiting, but it does kinda call out Gillete on their more hidden motives.

I hope you are joking in taking anything said in that parody seriously.

As ObsidianJones Already covered here:
https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1056588-New-Gillette-commercial-not-an-indictment-on-manhood?page=5#24286945

THIS is what they were saying, not some silly parody. The ad literally had a clip of Sexual assault victim Terry Crews.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/gillette-ad-urge-men-rid-toxic-masculinity-metoo/story?id=60386387

Was the Rock claiming to hate American men because he spoke out against Toxic masculinity?
https://me.askmen.com/health-and-sports-news/1104302/article/the-rock-talks-mental-health-and-toxic-masculinity

Is Dwayne Johnson telling everyone to vote Democrat? He was a registered Republican but is now an Independent, not a Democrat.

Hell even the term Toxic Masculinity was coined by a man, Shepherd Bliss, trying to help men, not attack them during an early men's movement. Silly parodies playing on people's ignorance are not what the ad was about. Far from it, it just takes people willing to take the time to actually understand what they were looking at there to figure it out.

It is honestly a bit comical that some think " toxic masculinity" is against men, or some sort of feminist creation, when in fact, it was created by men to help men and further men's causes. Since when were sexual abuse and violence partisan issues?

I never said I took it seriously as it?s a parody, but I highly doubt Gillette did this out of the goodness of their hearts. It was politically motivated. I really don?t care one way or another though, as it clearly won?t change anything judging by the reception. I fact it might have made things worse because it apparently pissed a lot of people off. Its only accomplishment might?ve been revealing where the social barometer needle still lies.

When female Physicians wanted to become equals, there were plenty of people pissed off about it. When Black people wanted to use the same Hospitals as white people it pissed a lot of people off. These things were accomplished by force, not by asking nicely. Physicians and hospital staff who refused to accept these things were terminated.If this had not happened, we would not have these things available today.

Change does not come easy. If we want to put a stop to these things, we have to address the causes directly and I think Gillette did exactly what needed to be done, but honestly only opened the door to discussing the actual causes and much further needs to happen if we have any hopes of changing this in the future. If we want to see actual change here, it is not done by asking nicely. Asking nicely has not worked, and the time for asking nicely is over. If you ask bullies nicely to stop, do they say " oh okay, sorry for imposing upon you."? of course not, that is why they are bullies. Some times it does take pissing people off to make them take a look at what is happening and put a stop to it. If a sexual assault victim cannot be given a platform in a razor ad where are they allowed to speak up? trying to pretend it isn't a big deal and turn a blind eye is why this IS necessary to get something done about it. At least people are pissed off enough to talk about it, that is a start.

Lil devils x:

hanselthecaretaker:

Lil devils x:
I hope you are joking in taking anything said in that parody seriously.

As ObsidianJones Already covered here:
https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1056588-New-Gillette-commercial-not-an-indictment-on-manhood?page=5#24286945

THIS is what they were saying, not some silly parody. The ad literally had a clip of Sexual assault victim Terry Crews.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/gillette-ad-urge-men-rid-toxic-masculinity-metoo/story?id=60386387

Was the Rock claiming to hate American men because he spoke out against Toxic masculinity?
https://me.askmen.com/health-and-sports-news/1104302/article/the-rock-talks-mental-health-and-toxic-masculinity

Is Dwayne Johnson telling everyone to vote Democrat? He was a registered Republican but is now an Independent, not a Democrat.

Hell even the term Toxic Masculinity was coined by a man, Shepherd Bliss, trying to help men, not attack them during an early men's movement. Silly parodies playing on people's ignorance are not what the ad was about. Far from it, it just takes people willing to take the time to actually understand what they were looking at there to figure it out.

It is honestly a bit comical that some think " toxic masculinity" is against men, or some sort of feminist creation, when in fact, it was created by men to help men and further men's causes. Since when were sexual abuse and violence partisan issues?

I never said I took it seriously as it?s a parody, but I highly doubt Gillette did this out of the goodness of their hearts. It was politically motivated. I really don?t care one way or another though, as it clearly won?t change anything judging by the reception. I fact it might have made things worse because it apparently pissed a lot of people off. Its only accomplishment might?ve been revealing where the social barometer needle still lies.

When female Physicians wanted to become equals, there were plenty of people pissed off about it. When Black people wanted to use the same Hospitals as white people it pissed a lot of people off. These things were accomplished by force, not by asking nicely. Physicians and hospital staff who refused to accept these things were terminated.If this had not happened, we would not have these things available today.

Change does not come easy. If we want to put a stop to these things, we have to address the causes directly and I think Gillette did exactly what needed to be done, but honestly only opened the door to discussing the actual causes and much further needs to happen if we have any hopes of changing this in the future. If we want to see actual change here, it is not done by asking nicely. Asking nicely has not worked, and the time for asking nicely is over. If you ask bullies nicely to stop, do they say " oh okay, sorry for imposing upon you."? of course not, that is why they are bullies. Some times it does take pissing people off to make them take a look at what is happening and put a stop to it. If a sexual assault victim cannot be given a platform in a razor ad where are they allowed to speak up? trying to pretend it isn't a big deal and turn a blind eye is why this IS necessary to get something done about it. At least people are pissed off enough to talk about it, that is a start.

The crux of it is that the video is severely disliked, to the point YouTube has been deleting dislikes by the tens of thousands to make it not look so bad. So, the video ultimately failed to get its point across successfully, and instead mostly incited more anger and distrust among its critics.

The proverbial frog has jumped out of the hot bath water. Change can be forced when time is of the essence, but usually it breeds resentment and backfires, no matter the sentiments involved.

hanselthecaretaker:

The proverbial frog has jumped out of the hot bath water. Change can be forced when time is of the essence, but usually it breeds resentment and backfires, no matter the sentiments involved.

Change needs to happen, so it needs to be "forced", one way or another.

tstorm823:

erttheking:

Whoopdie-doo. I don't drink. I don't see people lining up to vote me to be President.

Come on! It's funny! Saelune says he has no redeeming qualities, Donald Trump says he has one redeeming quality. That's funny.

Lil devils x:

Hawki:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_HL0wiK4Zc

Egard Watches has got in on it now.

I'll leave you to decide which ad is "better," but while it's fair to say that Egard wouldn't have made the ad if not for Gillette, the two aren't really saying the same thing. If taken in isolation, the Gillette ad highlights the negative effects of turning a blind eye to harassment and bullying. The Egard ad is highlighting areas where men are at the receiving end of disadvantage. Both are valid in my eye.

Of course, the real question to "what is a man?" is "a miserable little pile of secrets," but I'm guessing that the people at Gillette and Egard may not know much about Castlevania. 0_0

So the new ad is stating that Men are causing other men to be killed at work, murdered, commit suicide and Homeless, because that is the reality of those statistics. Hopefully the person who created that realizes that if men step up and change toxic masculinity then these things can be changed as well. The problem is the ad is not directly addressing the cause of these fatalities in order to try and reduce them.

I find it rather distasteful to show people senselessly being killed and thank them for being victims instead of actually address what is killing them and try to put a stop to it. Trying to make it stop rather than thank them should be the goal here right? You have to address the causes, which this ad does not do.

The scary thing is that it is like they think it is a man's duty to be killed, by thanking them "for their service as a man" which is a terrible message to send. We need to be addressing the causes rather than promoting it as "stoic" when the deaths are completely unnecessary.

You just made a way better and more sensate pro-men argument than anything Gorfias has posted. Hats off!

I'm not going to play the world's smallest violin for this ad, because it would be disrespectful towards people who dedicate their lives to put themselves on peril to save other people. But I can't respect the ad itself for the reasons you stated.

Lil devils x:
So the new ad is stating that Men are causing other men to be killed at work, murdered, commit suicide and Homeless, because that is the reality of those statistics. Hopefully the person who created that realizes that if men step up and change toxic masculinity then these things can be changed as well. The problem is the ad is not directly addressing the cause of these fatalities in order to try and reduce them.

I find it rather distasteful to show people senselessly being killed and thank them for being victims instead of actually address what is killing them and try to put a stop to it. Trying to make it stop rather than thank them should be the goal here right? You have to address the causes, which this ad does not do.

The scary thing is that it is like they think it is a man's duty to be killed, by thanking them "for their service as a man" which is a terrible message to send. We need to be addressing the causes rather than promoting it as "stoic" when the deaths are completely unnecessary.

The last time this came up on here that I'm aware of (was gone for a couple months), I was asked by the guy bringing up the complaints to do something about it. It's unfortunate that these statistics are always brought up as a filibuster, rather than as a way to seek a solution. I suggested ways to address suicide, and was written off because I wans't admitting it that men are the most persecuted minority in history. It's the same od song and dance.

Kind of the worst part is that the "men are raped too," "men are bullied," "men die by X more" people are almost always the same ones who make jokes about guys getting raped in prison, the ones who laugh when a guy comes forward about being beaten up by a woman, the ones who tell depressed men to "man up" and the ones who call non-toxic men "cucks" or throw around gay slurs or equate them to women.

For meninists want equality too, just as long as they're not forced to be equal to women.

Men cause men to die is not part of the narrative, because it still means addressing men.

tstorm823:

Saelune:

tstorm823:

Trump is only terrible. There is LITERALLY no redeeming qualities to Trump AT ALL.

He doesn't drink.

Hitler didn't smoke. Well, not cigarettes anyways.

erttheking:

Whoopdie-doo. I don't drink. I don't see people lining up to vote me to be President.

Come on! It's funny! Saelune says he has no redeeming qualities, Donald Trump says he has one redeeming quality. That's funny.[/quote]

Not really no, I hardly consider it a redeeming quality in myself. I just don't like the taste.

BreakfastMan:

hanselthecaretaker:

The proverbial frog has jumped out of the hot bath water. Change can be forced when time is of the essence, but usually it breeds resentment and backfires, no matter the sentiments involved.

Change needs to happen, so it needs to be "forced", one way or another.

Whenever you attempt to force a people to change their social (even if misaligned) beliefs you will encounter strong resistance. Measuring if the resistance, cost and probability of success of "conversion" is something one does not weigh lightly.

Sometimes actions are not worth taking in the short term when in a generation or so the societal problem will fix itself.

Abomination:

BreakfastMan:

hanselthecaretaker:

The proverbial frog has jumped out of the hot bath water. Change can be forced when time is of the essence, but usually it breeds resentment and backfires, no matter the sentiments involved.

Change needs to happen, so it needs to be "forced", one way or another.

Whenever you attempt to force a people to change their social (even if misaligned) beliefs you will encounter strong resistance. Measuring if the resistance, cost and probability of success of "conversion" is something one does not weigh lightly.

Sometimes actions are not worth taking in the short term when in a generation or so the societal problem will fix itself.

Was it worth forcing white people to treat other races fairly? There were hundreds of years of fevered resistance from white people and countless deaths. And it was clearly not something that was fixing itself. But was it worth rocking the boat?

Abomination:

BreakfastMan:

hanselthecaretaker:

The proverbial frog has jumped out of the hot bath water. Change can be forced when time is of the essence, but usually it breeds resentment and backfires, no matter the sentiments involved.

Change needs to happen, so it needs to be "forced", one way or another.

Whenever you attempt to force a people to change their social (even if misaligned) beliefs you will encounter strong resistance. Measuring if the resistance, cost and probability of success of "conversion" is something one does not weigh lightly.

Sometimes actions are not worth taking in the short term when in a generation or so the societal problem will fix itself.

Maybe, maybe not. But there are some for whom any change is too much change. They'll always resist in a strong manner and try to convince everyone that any kind of self-improvement is a Forced Change. You better keep an eye out for those people, because for them there is no non-forced change.

erttheking:
Not really no, I hardly consider it a redeeming quality in myself. I just don?t like the taste.

You still have my vote for President!

hanselthecaretaker:

Lil devils x:

hanselthecaretaker:

I never said I took it seriously as it?s a parody, but I highly doubt Gillette did this out of the goodness of their hearts. It was politically motivated. I really don?t care one way or another though, as it clearly won?t change anything judging by the reception. I fact it might have made things worse because it apparently pissed a lot of people off. Its only accomplishment might?ve been revealing where the social barometer needle still lies.

When female Physicians wanted to become equals, there were plenty of people pissed off about it. When Black people wanted to use the same Hospitals as white people it pissed a lot of people off. These things were accomplished by force, not by asking nicely. Physicians and hospital staff who refused to accept these things were terminated.If this had not happened, we would not have these things available today.

Change does not come easy. If we want to put a stop to these things, we have to address the causes directly and I think Gillette did exactly what needed to be done, but honestly only opened the door to discussing the actual causes and much further needs to happen if we have any hopes of changing this in the future. If we want to see actual change here, it is not done by asking nicely. Asking nicely has not worked, and the time for asking nicely is over. If you ask bullies nicely to stop, do they say " oh okay, sorry for imposing upon you."? of course not, that is why they are bullies. Some times it does take pissing people off to make them take a look at what is happening and put a stop to it. If a sexual assault victim cannot be given a platform in a razor ad where are they allowed to speak up? trying to pretend it isn't a big deal and turn a blind eye is why this IS necessary to get something done about it. At least people are pissed off enough to talk about it, that is a start.

The crux of it is that the video is severely disliked, to the point YouTube has been deleting dislikes by the tens of thousands to make it not look so bad. So, the video ultimately failed to get its point across successfully, and instead mostly incited more anger and distrust among its critics.

The proverbial frog has jumped out of the hot bath water. Change can be forced when time is of the essence, but usually it breeds resentment and backfires, no matter the sentiments involved.

most people who viewed the video did not like or dislike the video. Did you? I know I didn't. Though it being disliked proves their point. That is why the video was successful. They were stressing how this is a severe problem that must be addressed and it is so severe due to so many people actually doing these things. how can "the mob" chase down the single boy if it were not for the many boys who do these things participating? How can Men be bullied, abused and killed if it were not from another person doing this to them? This video was meant for the guys who do this and you expect them to get pissed when confronted. How else would you expect them to act when it is those men who do this and the men who don't want to see it or talk about it and choose to turn a blind eye are also the same ones who enable it to continue by not doing anything to stop it.
image

How many dislikes do you think a video condemning slavery would have gotten in the south just before the civil war? That is what you expect when you want to make real change happen.

undeadsuitor:

Abomination:

BreakfastMan:

Change needs to happen, so it needs to be "forced", one way or another.

Whenever you attempt to force a people to change their social (even if misaligned) beliefs you will encounter strong resistance. Measuring if the resistance, cost and probability of success of "conversion" is something one does not weigh lightly.

Sometimes actions are not worth taking in the short term when in a generation or so the societal problem will fix itself.

Was it worth forcing white people to treat other races fairly? There were hundreds of years of fevered resistance from white people and countless deaths. And it was clearly not something that was fixing itself. But was it worth rocking the boat?

Was the Civil War worth it? Hard to say, as we will never know what would have happened if the US was not tied up in both a conflict of racial equality and disputed federal influence.

The other comparable nation, the British Empire, managed to outlaw slavery with very little bloodshed, and even influenced other nations into following suit. I am not saying all social issues will require a war on the scale as the Civil War to resolve, but it was the cost of outlawing slavery in the US... and THAT is what bred the racist resentment, a sudden influx of uneducated African ex-slaves entering the economy.

It is hard to encourage racial harmony when lower classed white men are being conscripted to fight in a war to free slaves from slaveowners half way across the country. Then after the war they are competing for the same jobs as you and often times getting them because they're prepared to be paid less. Not saying the racism was justified, but I understand how it would come about in the lesser educated.

Lil devils x:
How many dislikes do you think a video condemning slavery would have gotten in the south just before the civil war? That is what you expect when you want to make real change happen.

Hell, a white man kissing a black woman nearly got Star Trek taken off the air in the era of Civil Rights. Fice years after Dr King's "I Have a Dream" speech, enough people were losing theirt shit over a fictitious kiss on TV that several affiliates pulled the show and it was in danger.

Guess we can't have racial equality because the teevee box gave white people in the south the sads.

Something Amyss:

Lil devils x:
How many dislikes do you think a video condemning slavery would have gotten in the south just before the civil war? That is what you expect when you want to make real change happen.

Hell, a white man kissing a black woman nearly got Star Trek taken off the air in the era of Civil Rights. Fice years after Dr King's "I Have a Dream" speech, enough people were losing theirt shit over a fictitious kiss on TV that several affiliates pulled the show and it was in danger.

Guess we can't have racial equality because the teevee box gave white people in the south the sads.

No matter the derision you hold towards those people, they also have the same voting rights as everyone else.

In an effort to grant rights to some people are you prepared to force others to give up their rights? The end goal is probably worth it, but there will be significant discomfort leading up to it, and it can in turn be justification for future stripping of rights when another social concept is deemed "necessary".

Abomination:

Something Amyss:

Lil devils x:
How many dislikes do you think a video condemning slavery would have gotten in the south just before the civil war? That is what you expect when you want to make real change happen.

Hell, a white man kissing a black woman nearly got Star Trek taken off the air in the era of Civil Rights. Fice years after Dr King's "I Have a Dream" speech, enough people were losing theirt shit over a fictitious kiss on TV that several affiliates pulled the show and it was in danger.

Guess we can't have racial equality because the teevee box gave white people in the south the sads.

No matter the derision you hold towards those people, they also have the same voting rights as everyone else.

In an effort to grant rights to some people are you prepared to force others to give up their rights? The end goal is probably worth it, but there will be significant discomfort leading up to it, and it can in turn be justification for future stripping of rights when another social concept is deemed "necessary".

What rights are taken away in order to grant other's rights? If all have equal rights, there is nothing to take away.

Abomination:

Something Amyss:

Lil devils x:
How many dislikes do you think a video condemning slavery would have gotten in the south just before the civil war? That is what you expect when you want to make real change happen.

Hell, a white man kissing a black woman nearly got Star Trek taken off the air in the era of Civil Rights. Fice years after Dr King's "I Have a Dream" speech, enough people were losing theirt shit over a fictitious kiss on TV that several affiliates pulled the show and it was in danger.

Guess we can't have racial equality because the teevee box gave white people in the south the sads.

No matter the derision you hold towards those people, they also have the same voting rights as everyone else.

In an effort to grant rights to some people are you prepared to force others to give up their rights? The end goal is probably worth it, but there will be significant discomfort leading up to it, and it can in turn be justification for future stripping of rights when another social concept is deemed "necessary".

You know what's discomforting? Being a second class citizen.

Are you willing to keep a black man in chains to protect the feelings and job prospects of a white man?

Are you willing to keep a human being as property because it would help the job opportunities of a free man?

Lil devils x:
What rights are taken away in order to grant other's rights? If all have equal rights, there is nothing to take away.

The problem is, the "rights" are derived from the majority vote as to what rights should be rights.

Presently all do not have equal rights, and that has happened because others are having their rights upheld.

undeadsuitor:
You know what's discomforting? Being a second class citizen.

Are you willing to keep a black man in chains to protect the feelings and job prospects of a white man?

Are you willing to keep a human being as property because it would help the job opportunities of a free man?

Me? No. But if enough people with the right to vote do feel that way then it becomes law.

Some of those people feel as though they are being forced into the choice of granting someone they will never meet freedom from slavery , or putting food on their table. While they are incorrect, it is what they believed.

Please do not assume that I am PRO slavery or racism. I am vehemently against the practices. I am, however, pro democracy - which unfortunately can come with the nasty side effect of the tyranny of the majority at times. The mitigation of which comes with its own caveats and disadvantages.

What I have listed are challenges and not excuses for racial, sexual, or gender oppression.

Something Amyss:

Lil devils x:
How many dislikes do you think a video condemning slavery would have gotten in the south just before the civil war? That is what you expect when you want to make real change happen.

Hell, a white man kissing a black woman nearly got Star Trek taken off the air in the era of Civil Rights. Fice years after Dr King's "I Have a Dream" speech, enough people were losing theirt shit over a fictitious kiss on TV that several affiliates pulled the show and it was in danger.

Guess we can't have racial equality because the teevee box gave white people in the south the sads.

And the writers made it a kiss under mind control anyway.

Abomination:

In an effort to grant rights to some people are you prepared to force others to give up their rights?

"But what about my right to hurt people?"

This is te weirdest victim mentality I've ever seen.

Thaluikhain:
And the writers made it a kiss under mind control anyway.

Yup. It wasn't even a call out, but apparently, it took rights away from those poor, hateful people.

Abomination:

BreakfastMan:

hanselthecaretaker:

The proverbial frog has jumped out of the hot bath water. Change can be forced when time is of the essence, but usually it breeds resentment and backfires, no matter the sentiments involved.

Change needs to happen, so it needs to be "forced", one way or another.

Whenever you attempt to force a people to change their social (even if misaligned) beliefs you will encounter strong resistance.

So? Just because it is hard doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

Something Amyss:

Abomination:

In an effort to grant rights to some people are you prepared to force others to give up their rights?

"But what about my right to hurt people?"

This is te weirdest victim mentality I've ever seen.

Talking about voting rights and representation.

BreakfastMan:
So? Just because it is hard doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

I am not convinced that the Civil War was worth it, given how other nations were handling the issue of slavery at the time.

Abomination:
Talking about voting rights and representation.

Blacks and whites kissing takes away voting rights? My this gets curiouser and curiouser.

Abomination:
I am not convinced that the Civil War was worth it, given how other nations were handling the issue of slavery at the time.

If the south didn't want to be wrecked they shouldn't have left the country to keep black people as inhuman property and pets

Freedom of choice doesn't protect you from the consequences

Something Amyss:

Abomination:
Talking about voting rights and representation.

Blacks and whites kissing takes away voting rights? My this gets curiouser and curiouser.

There is more than one conversation going on in this thread. Stop being obtuse.

undeadsuitor:

Abomination:
I am not convinced that the Civil War was worth it, given how other nations were handling the issue of slavery at the time.

If the south didn't want to be wrecked they shouldn't have left the country to keep black people as inhuman property and pets

Freedom of choice doesn't protect you from the consequences

Slavery was used by the North to force their will on the South who wished to leave the US. I am not convinced the South would have remained a nation that supported slavery with the rise of industrialism.

Abomination:
Slavery was used by the North to force their will on the South

Damn, that is a hell of a hot-take. What are you basing these assertions on?

Abomination:
I am not convinced the South would have remained a nation that supported slavery with the rise of industrialism.

Why not? Instead of paid workers, they'd had slave workers at the factories.

BreakfastMan:

Abomination:
Slavery was used by the North to force their will on the South

Damn, that is a hell of a hot-take. What are you basing these assertions on?

What is conscription if not slavery?

CaitSeith:

Abomination:
I am not convinced the South would have remained a nation that supported slavery with the rise of industrialism.

Why not? Instead of paid workers, they'd had slave workers at the factories.

Because in every case industrialization has been the death of slavery. You need a (relatively) intelligent population to operate machinery. Slavery stifles that aspect of humanity. It becomes more economical to have paid labor than have to bother with the housing, feeding, security of slave ownership in an early industrial setting.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here