precisely. Double standard is the key concept here.


And for those who say that’s “what aboutism”, the actual what aboutism is the ad, since the ad essentially asks “what about men and their bad behavior”. The ad didn’t cover humans together, but rather asked WHAT ABOUT males.

I don’t know because I don’t have anything to do with making ads for companies. I suppose you could make one- with the right amount of money you could buy a time slot on a channel and run your ad. Or you could make one and post it on YouTube... of course it might not get as much attention as Gillette commercial because you’re just an individual- not a major company. Or you could go to school and get a degree in marketing..work your way up from doing ads for local businesses and then get a job with a company that makes things for women... I brought up Tampax in an earlier post-
There-
You’re free to change the bitching part to gold digging...I just picked what I said because it went with the whole menstuation vibe. There isn’t really that many companies that just make products for women- they make products for men and then stem off and make things for women.. it’s kind of weird. There’s a lot of things I think women should change about themselves..some things I am guilty of, some I’m not. As far as the ad you’re requesting goes, it’s just not something that I can personally get done for you or even have a guess to what the progress is on it.. if I do hear something then I’ll let you know

If they portrayed women in any kind of negative light, or black people.. or muslims.. or any "protected class", heads would roll at the ad agency. There'd be riots in the street. Hence they chose the safe target of white men; the only demographic you're not only allowed to slight, but actually encouraged.

Well done you really got me.

Here's the obviously implied question: Are you denying this pattern exists in the advert OP? It definitely seems like you are.

This ^^^

How some people can’t see this is rather pathetic. Lol

Questions are implied. It happens.


Are you going to answer my question?

Translation:

There is no ad telling women not to be gold digging whores because there is an anti male agenda, and I got no other answer, since there isn’t any other answer, so I typed a long useless response trying to avoid answering a simple question.

The ad really portrays women as weak helpless objects too.

-A man (non-white of course) has to tell his little girl that she's "strong" (because she can't figure that out for herself.. she needs to be told that by her Dad)

-A black man has to tell that white dude not to approach the woman as she passes ("Not cool bro! Not cool!). Why is it not cool? On what planet are men not supposed to approach women? The phucking species will fail to perpetuate itself if men stop approaching women, as we know women certainly don't approach men (your outlier anecdotes don't disprove this rule). Of course, one of the left/feminist's main goals is to destroy the relationship between men & women, thus destroying the nuclear family (which you can easily see is working in our divorce rates and low replacement birth rates). In turn, this necessitates the importation of 3rd worlders to replace the aging/non-reproducing indigenous population.. Nice compliant easily manipulated/bribed Democratic voters who support Globalism and tend to vote against things like Free Speech and gun ownership.

-A white man tells a woman to "smile" at a party and some non-white knight has to step in and tell him "C'mon man!", as if the woman can't speak up for herself.. As if asking a woman to smile is somehow this HORRIBLE thing (as feminists always portray it).. As if a man who thinks a woman is attractive but thinks she looks unhappy and tries to cheer her up is this horrible sin and must never be allowed.

What the phuck is wrong with you leftists. If women are so strong and empowered, then surely they can tell themselves that they're strong. Surely they can rebuff the advances of an approaching male if they don't find him attractive/aren't interested in him.. right? Surely being told to smile isn't the end of the world, and if she doesn't want to smile, she could just tell the guy to go phuck himself? But no.. apparently women are incapable of any of these things and need men to do it for them. Men must step in.

Strong & empowered my ass.

Nope. I showed you that I had already made the same ****ing point much earlier than you in this same exact thread. I just wanted to answer your question in such a way that you’d realize how ****ing dumb it was for you to keep asking me it- like you were trying to make me see some kind of brilliant point you were trying to make. So I knew what you were getting at, I don’t know what you wanted me to respond with.. still don’t- but I already brought up the double standard earlier so it didn’t fly over my head. I know I’m getting repetitive but I have a feeling that you have a low reading comprehension so maybe if I keep saying the same thing using different words and/or sentence structures one of them will be at your level.

Cliffs:

You agree there is anti white anti male agenda, and a double standard.

Carry on, good day

Great points above.

I've already addressed them repeatedly.

The majority of the misc claims that the ad was demonizing white men...

I point out that @ 0:35 a black man is held in a single frame, saying 'Boys will be boys' as 2 kids are fighting in front of him.

Later a white man at the BBQ steps forwards and stops the kid from fighting.

The kid who is shown throughout the vid, being chased by bullies who are going to beat him up, is saved by a white man with his son.

To retriate:

>Black dude being chitty, allowing kids to fight in front of him.

>White dude stops kids from fighting.

>White dude saves a kid from getting his a group beat down.

>Miscers still claim that the Ad is anti-white.




Anti-White?

Demonstrably false.

However the aboveis completely ignored, by miscers who claim that the ad was anti-white. It cleary is not.

Did you watch the AD?

@ 0:35 there is a black guy acting chitty, and at the end of the video when the white dude stops the kid from fighting, the same black dude is clearly shown stood there doing nothing.

That's not a negative portrayal of a black person to you?

You think that was positive?

Dishonest ^^^

The ad showed one instance of a ‘good’ conduct by a white guy which you cling on to. This good deed was an example of what the guy was SUPPOSED to do, as in Gillette lecturing us on morality and SHOWING us the right way. The men, especially white men were FIRST shown to engage in WRONG behavior (aka Gillette lecturing men on morality). No such ad exists for women. And of course white kids fought, so naturally the father is white. Your argument is weak. Let it go. Admit there is anti male anti white agenda, and move on.

It's the same issue with movies. They used to be about entertainment, but now everything has to teach a lesson or invoke some made up social political issue

Back from work, I'll give a slightly longer response...Not relevant.

This ad isn't 'anti-white'.No idea.

However, 'be a strong independent woman, who don't need no man' is a standard feminist message for the past few decades (the opposite of gold digging). Or are you denying that?I'm far left, I don't like capitalism... Practically every large corporation (from what I've seen) has seriously questionable ethics. I was under no illusion that Gillette would be any different.

Actually at 0:35, 1 black guy along with a chitload of white guys all say "boys will be boys", as if this is a saying in common usage, or is ever used to actually provide cover for true bad behaviors (like assault/harassment, which is what the video is implying). So for your narrative, at BEST you can say 1 black guy was shown to be providing an excuse for bad male behaviors while standing in a line of roughly 30+ white guys who were all doing the same thing. A 1:30 ratio isn't really proving your point for you. More like it's proving mine.

Second:

The "white dude" who stops the kids from fighting (they weren't even fighting, just having rough play, which of course is also demonized by feminists and the left) is a fukcing cuck. There was nothing wrong with the behavior of those kids. They were just playing. If they'd become truly violent, then ok great he should step in.. That's like basic parenting 101. He's not being portrayed in a positive light; He's being portrayed as an emasculated pussy who in turn is attempting to pass on his emasculation to his kids by keeping them from behaving in a manner that befits young boys (kinda like our schools which are almost entirely run by women, who drug boys for fictitious/over diagnosed "ailments" like ADD/ADHD).

You haven't even remotely rebutted my statements.Yes it is. It's typical far left anti-white, anti-male bull****. The woman who directed it is a known far-left feminazi who regularly produces this kind of content.

2 white guys doing something good...

Breaking up the kids fighting, and saving the kid from being bullied.

Or you don't think those 2 acts were good?Now you're moving the goal posts.

Before you were talking about how 'anti-white' the ad was, and now that I've pointed out at 0:35 of the video they clearly show a black man acting chitty, now your saying 'but they showed white men acting bad first'.

It seems like you are just going to cling to your perspective, no matter what evidence is presented to you.

The ad demonstrably is not anti white.

In the ad, only white men literally save children from harm.

Children are the most vulnerable member of society, and both times that children are from violence in the ad, it's from white men. However, that doesn't seem to be of any significance to you.

Absolutely none.

And so you continue telling everyone that the ad is 'anti-white'.

Other people recognize that for a man to be shown protecting children, the most vulnerable members of a society, is a deeply heroic portrayal. However, evidently, not to you. It's insignificant. Hence, why it holds no importance to you, and you continue to talk about how poorly white men were depicted in the ad.

I'm not expecting anything I wrote above to change you mind, but hopefully lurkers will see that you're not being rational.^^^ Another example of how showing a man protecting children is seen as nothing to you.

Any person with traditional values would see how beautiful and how much of an honor it is for a man to be shown protecting children.

To you it's nothing.

This ad is anti white. Black/ethnic guy stands up for a girl when white guy tells her “smile honey”, black guy stops white guy from cat calling, white kids fight, black kids eat peacefully.

You have “no idea” why there isn’t an ad asking women not to be bad? Give me a break. You know exactly why there is no such ad. Because scum that made this ad is anti men. That;s why there is the double standard.

You’re far left and don’t like capitalism? Then why is US #1 destination of immigrants? Capitalism is why you even have that computer of yours. Some of us lived under Socialism, and millions of us escaped it and came to capitalism. Grow up.

few things:
men are rapists
men are douchebags
men are sexist
men are violent
men are careless

and everyone's like: stfu and sell chitty overpriced razors, don't pander

The ad disproportionally shows black men being better than white, your one example of a white guy doing good isn’t enough, there are many more examples of the opposite in the ad. Give it up. Let it go. You‘re embarrassing yourself.

Not anti-white then, is it?
No, only to you. Kusok #142 applies to you to, you don't seem to think it's of any significance that the only times in the ad when men are showing protecting children, the most vulnerable members of our society, it's done by white men.

You still see the ad as 'anti-white'.

I don't think you're being rational, and hopefully lurkers will see that.

I don't see how any man with traditionalist values will see depicting men protecting children is insignificant. And if you don't see it as insignificant, why don't you realize that they gave the white men in the commerical the highest honour (traditionally speaking) of being a protector of children.It's debateable what they were portraying, fighting, rough housing gone too far, or simply rough housing.I understand, you don't seem to think that only depicting white men saving kids is of any significance, so you believe the ad is 'anti-white'.
3rd time...

They show a black man acting chitty 0:35.

The only men in the ad saving children are white.


But to you that advertisement is still anti-white.


I hope lurkers can see how irrational and anti-traditionalist you are (a part of traditionalism is that being the physical protector of children, is the responsibility of the men).

I hope that we both agree that:

1) Children are the most vulnerable members of society.

2) Tradtionalist values are that men are supposed to be the physical protector or children's safety.


If we both agree on that, please answer the following questions...




Is there a black man shown, smiling, and not stepping in to stop children from fighting, in the ad?

How many black men are show saving children, in the ad?

How many white men are show saving children, in the ad?


(I hope that lurkers answer the above questions too.)

Ok, then don't complain about 'unethical business practices' of Gillette to me then, when that is standard under capitalism.

Also... I'm not Marxist. So criticize Marxist-Socialism all you want, I'll join you.

[QUOTE=BetaAsPhuck post_id=1571922331]Not anti-white then, is it?[/QUOTE]Yes, it is.


[QUOTE=BetaAsPhuck post_id=1571922331]No, only to you. Kusok #142 applies to you to, you don't seem to think it's of any significance that the only times in the ad when men are showing protecting children, the most vulnerable members of our society, it's done by white men.[/QUOTE]Because the kids are theirs. The only people in the video shown protecting women are black.

[QUOTE=BetaAsPhuck post_id=1571922331]You still see the ad as 'anti-white'.[/QUOTE]Because it is, as I have repeatedly demonstrated.

[QUOTE=BetaAsPhuck post_id=1571922331]I don't think you're being rational, and hopefully lurkers will see that.[/QUOTE]I think you're a stupid forum troll who likes to be contrary for its own sake.

[QUOTE=BetaAsPhuck post_id=1571922331]I don't see how any man with traditionalist values will see depicting men protecting children is insignificant. And if you don't see it as insignificant, why don't you realize that they gave the white men in the commerical the highest honour (traditionally speaking) of being a protector of children.[/QUOTE]Since the main point of the video is that men are evil, and that women are their victims (ie toxic masculinity and #metoo are anti-male sentiments), the kids are ancillary. It's more about pushing their narrative that men need to help brainwash the next generation of kids to act like cucks like their ****ty emasculated fathers (if they have fathers in their lives at all, which a lot don't thanks to feminism and the left's destruction of the family unit).


[QUOTE=BetaAsPhuck post_id=1571922331]It's debateable what they were portraying, fighting, rough housing gone too far, or simply rough housing.[/QUOTE]It's like 3 seconds of footage. From what we can see, they were merely playing. Feminists always demonize rough play, ergo it's pretty straight forward what they're demonizing here.


[QUOTE=BetaAsPhuck post_id=1571922331]I understand, you don't seem to think that only depicting white men saving kids is of any significance, so you believe the ad is 'anti-white'.[/QUOTE]Again, I've outlined many times why this is the case. You constantly repeating the same "But lookit the black dude at 35 seconds" doesn't negate the points I've made (or Kusoks).

Just admit you're a far left provocateur and you're attempting to annoy people, not actually have a rational debate.



[QUOTE=BetaAsPhuck post_id=1571922331]3rd time...

They show a black man acting chitty 0:35.

The only men in the ad saving children are white.


But to that advertisement is still anti-white.


I hope lurkers can see how irrational and anti-traditionalist you are (a part of traditionalism is that being the physical protector of children, is the responsibility of the men).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BetaAsPhuck post_id=1571922631][B]
Is there a black man shown, smiling, and not stepping in to stop children from fighting, in the ad?[/QUOTE]They're clearly not his kids (what with him being black, and the kids are both white). By the logic implied in your statement, the other 30+ white guys who stood there and did nothing were in the wrong too.. right?

This right here.

Go back to RP and argue about this ****

Are we still talking about the Gillette ad? I thought everyone moved on to Dollar Shave club and this was over...

Unethical practices are not standard under capitalism anymore so then under Socialism or any other ism. In fact unethical practices are worse under Socialism (lived it). Under Capitalism at least you can speak out and not buy the crap racist sexist lefty pigs are selling.

We're getting too far off topic, but I would advise you to look into howColtanis sourced, to make smartphones and tablets. (Hint: Corporations don't care, until there is massive journalism uncovering how it's sourced, and then they give lip service to changing things.)

I would also advise in general to check where most products are made, and then check out the average working conditions, labour laws, and child labour laws in those respective countries.

Here is a very good documentary on the standard practices of Corporations...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y888wVY5hzw


Corporate abuse and exploitation is the norm, just because maybe it doesn't happen in your country, doesn't mean that it's ended. The Fair Trade label, and 'ethical sourcing' label on products is a movement for a reason.


I won't reply to whatever you write in response to this, to avoid further going off topic.