SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by exaeta
Gillette has been invaded by the enemy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0
Just watch it.
Then switch to this razor instead of Gillette:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PKHIDRA/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_BzxsCbEV973QD
(Disclaimer: This post is not sponsored)
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
I'm wearing PAMPERS!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @09:11AM (1 child)
How about you buy whichever razor you feel doesn't endanger your toxic masculinity and let nature take its course.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 24 2019, @04:44PM
My masculinity has a beard and doesn't need one but thanks anyway.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Aegis on Thursday January 24 2019, @10:36AM (1 child)
This is a sponsored post, you just didn't get a cut.
Why, exactly, do you find a commercial you don't like newsworthy? What about all the other commercials you don't like?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @05:06PM
Snowflakes are like vegans, they have to let everyone know their true feelings.
(Score: 3, Informative) by insanumingenium on Thursday January 24 2019, @05:06PM
In the future when posting non-sponsored amazon links, feel free to chop them off after the product link, which is the part immediately after the dp. So in this case, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PKHIDRA [amazon.com] would be sufficient.
P.S. Being "good" at marketing is what made Gillette a household name, and ensured that entire generations of Murican!s were more or less required to shave for work (pretty much regardless of their line of work), The idea that they would jump on whatever trend they could ride shouldn't be a surprise, just as long as it sells their shitty razors.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @05:34PM (3 children)
https://www.amazon.com/Feather-Double-Edge-Blades-Count/dp/B00AGG3MNU/ [amazon.com]
These are the ones I got last time. It was like 100 for $18 or something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @05:55PM (1 child)
https://www.amazon.com/d/Mens-Shaving-Hair-Removal-Products/Personna-Double-Razor-Blades-Count/B0077LAJT2/ [amazon.com]
Just kidding, it was this one.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Friday January 25 2019, @09:54AM
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Friday January 25 2019, @12:17AM
These blades are spectacular, wouldn't shave with anything but these or a proper straight razor if I was forced to shave.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 24 2019, @05:50PM (2 children)
The compromised one is you, and you have proven to be very useful in the campaign [wikimedia.org]. The best things in life are free, especially advertising.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @05:57PM (1 child)
Contrary to popular belief, not all advertising is good advertising.
This is also not an example of the Streisand effect. Were you dropped on your head?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:36PM
This is also not an example of the Streisand effect.
Of course it is. It has everybody distracted and focused on bullshit. Were you raised in a box? Or are you just naturally stupid?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:20PM (1 child)
What you need, my friend, is a 55-gallon drum of hospital-grade benzocaine ointment, for the incredible butthurt you're suffering.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday January 25 2019, @03:39PM
This Gillette ad is blatantly misandrist. It is bound to patriarchal heteronormativity. It erases male homosexuality and women—regardless of sexual orientation—forced to legally identify as the male gender. It seeks to hold homosexual men and women forced to legally identify as the male gender accountable for the actions of heterosexual men by that erasure.
Additionally, the men depicted in the Gillette ad are not even representative of the vast majority of heterosexual men. It seeks to hold all heterosexual men accountable for the actions of a few heterosexual men.
However, my experience is limited to the working class. Perhaps bourgeois men really are like that (the 1%ers), but I don't see what that has to do with 99% of people assigned the male gender at birth.
The caveat on that for the peanut gallery is that the men freaking out over this ad are, in fact, taking issue with patriarchy. This ad also seems to imply a feminine mystique (of being incapable of sexual harassment and assault, which is objectively untrue), which brings us back to patriarchy.
This ad is not an artifact of feminism, as some men may believe, but an artifact of patriarchy. It can be summed up as follows: “Men, you're not protecting the Hunnies well enough!”
Does that make sense or have I gone astray once again?
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:30PM (12 children)
By your logic, someone who prefers their steak rare, while you prefer it well done is your enemy. And someone who insists (oh, the horror!) on drinking whole milk while you know that 1% milk is the "correct" milk to drink is also your enemy.
And since they are your enemy, they are fair game to shoot, bomb, stab or otherwise murder, because if they disagree with you, they threaten the whole world with destruction. amirite?
How are those pipe bombs coming along?
Please. People who disagree with you aren't your enemy. They're just people with whom you disagree. Rather than demonizing them, why don't you do something a little more constructive -- like engaging in a dialogue and understanding their concerns while voicing your own.
In most cases, you'll find that you have much more in common with those "enemies" than you do differences.
We call that kind of behavior rationality and common courtesy. Maybe you should try it sometime. I won't hold my breath.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @07:34PM
Why this needs to be said after years of conservatives whinging about people who can't tolerate contrary opinions is beyond me.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday January 25 2019, @12:55AM (9 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @01:10AM (8 children)
huh? Yo no entiende, amigo.
So 'splain to me, Lucy.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday January 25 2019, @02:57AM (7 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @04:39AM (6 children)
What? watch a linked Youtube video? Are you new here? That's even less likely than reading TFA. especially since it's an ad.
I never voluntarily watch ads.
I was responding to the journal owner's characterization of fellow humans. I even quoted it so it would be obvious that's what I was talking about.
So I have to ask: Did you even read my post?
It wasn't about the video at all. It was about his characterization of people as "enemies." I don't have to watch the video to get his implication.
And even though I was explicit, you apparently didn't get my point. More's the pity.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday January 25 2019, @01:04PM (5 children)
Now that you've made it explicit, I can tell you you're just wrong. You misinterpreted him, badly so, in a way that appears tendentious and quite possibly in bad faith as well.
If you're going to make a point of refusing to even view the context of the statement, I suppose it's no surprise you wind up misunderstanding it completely.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @02:35PM (4 children)
Your command of the English language seems to be lacking or you're being deliberately obtuse:
enemy (n) [dictionary.com]:
When one characterizes those who disagrees with them (especially about trivial issues like this) as enemies, I see that as an indicator of deep pain, mistrust and anger at other humans, mental illness and/or, in a very few cases, disingenuous hateful rhetoric.
Recommending that folks engage in dialogue to discuss and address differences is somehow "bad faith" to you?
I'm not sure what shaped your world view, but it must have been very painful. I'm sorry. I wish I could help to ease your (and exaeta's) pain.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday January 25 2019, @03:17PM (3 children)
Lol. Now I know I'm being trolled.
"When one characterizes those who disagrees with them (especially about trivial issues like this)"
Trivial issues like *what* exactly?
What issues is it that you imagine here? We know it's imaginary, because you already told us you refused to view the context full stop.
"disingenuous hateful rhetoric."
Like you refuse to view.
"Recommending that folks engage in dialogue to discuss and address differences is somehow "bad faith" to you?"
In context, yes, it makes no sense at all. But again, you don't know the context, you refuse to even glance at it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday January 25 2019, @04:15PM (2 children)
You assume that I'm acting in bad faith. I'm not. I'm one of those people who believes that for the overwhelming majority of humans, communication and compromise can address most disagreements.
You assume that I'm trolling. I'm not. The video is irrelevant to my point. I was objecting to the characterization that those who express differing views are somehow your enemy. Which makes no sense to me. I respect that others think and believe differently from me. And the best way I know to work through such differences is to communicate, understand and either compromise or agree to disagree. How is that trolling?
A few questions:
Have any of the folks that exaeta referred to as "enemies" done or threatened violence to him or anyone else, as far as you know?
Have any of these folks done anything to harm anyone?
Is anyone *forcing* you or exaeta to do, say or think anything?
The answers to those questions is "no." Please explain to me how that makes it appropriate to consider those responsible as "enemies."
You see what I'm doing here? I'm explaining my position, addressing your concerns and seeking to understand your position so that we can come to an understanding and, if not agreement, at least the ability to communicate without rancor.
If that's trolling and bad faith, then I must have been transported to bizzaro world [wikipedia.org] overnight while I slept.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday January 25 2019, @05:00PM (1 child)
No, I pointed out that there are reasons to think you may be acting in bad faith.
"The video is irrelevant to my point."
Then your point is irrelevant to the discussion, because the video is the context of the statement you attacked. No statement can be properly judged out of context.
"I was objecting to the characterization that those who express differing views are somehow your enemy."
Which is an imaginary characterization, one that only appeared on the field when you assumed it.
"Please explain to me how that makes it appropriate to consider those responsible as "enemies.""
How is it appropriate to consider someone an enemy who hasn't specifically, physically attacked you yet? Can you really not think of at least a half dozen answers to that without needing to take a breath?
How about if they repeatedly express deep hostility towards your identity, and a desire for 'legislative solutions' (which is of course a euphemism for legalizing violence against you?) What if that's their hallmark, their way of signalling what they believe to be virtue? Wouldn't that be a bit of a troubling sign, something that might well justify the characterization as "a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something" or "one that is antagonistic to another?" If a company hired a director with a history of transphobic statements and productions to put out an ad that subtly and not-so-subtly amounted to an attack on transfolk (and appeared intended to signal virtue to some right-wing transphobes) would you not understand the response then? What if it were misogynistic or racist instead of transphobic?
Classifying someone as an enemy doesn't necessarily mean they can't be reasoned with, though it's of course not a positive sign on that point. It just means they are hostile towards you, and you have noticed.
And again, this is not a production that invites discussion or question. It's sheer preaching. It preaches a tendentious and often demonstrably false ideology of hatred, and it does so consciously, deliberately, to judge by the history of the director. This is coming from a place that rejects dialogue entirely - only obedience is acceptable. Attempt to start a dialogue with someone like that and you'll be accused of harassment or worse.
This has been going on a long time and I can only barely credit you with good faith if I also credit you with absolute obliviousness.
The US is in the midst of a cultural civil war, it's been going on for decades, and those of us that don't want to take part all too often get caught in the crossfire.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 11 2019, @05:20PM
are you dumb? what dialogue you want from an ad?
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Friday January 25 2019, @06:47PM
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 24 2019, @06:48PM (3 children)
You might want a short list [wikipedia.org] of other products you need to boycott for it to mean anything.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Friday January 25 2019, @12:14AM
That tears it, I am not buying any of P&Gs menstrual products!
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Friday January 25 2019, @09:58AM (1 child)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @03:37PM
Eh, can't really tell if you seriously have your panties in a knot, or if you're just working the meme. Got some hits. I guess it's just another one those easy things... Where's a systemd troll when you need one?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NPC-131072 on Thursday January 24 2019, @10:09PM (3 children)
Gillette wants you to man up and step in when a boy is being bullied*
* unless he's guilty of smirking while wearing a MAGA hat
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @11:37PM (1 child)
You really shouldn't use that example since the stories were retracted when correct information came out.
When was the last time conservative outlets corrected their bullshit? How many caravans are coming to kill us all again?
Pffffffftttt, you whities are sure going insane as your white privilege gets eroded. Your response is trolling and hate, way to really prove everyone wrong fren!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @12:31AM
Meh. Marx and Trotsky have shown that we're all doomed to continue repeating long curves of capitalism (the ones that take 100 years, as opposed to the short bust-boom cycles that play out over 5/10 years) until white people pull their heads out of their asses and stop blaming brown and black people for the inherent contradictions of the economic system whites worship.
Of course, I have to laugh when whites that are more economically privileged than whites in the working class invert the objective privilege in the situation by inventing things based entirely in anachronisms like "white privilege" (ignoring the blame to be laid at the feet of capitalism for maintaining the objective effects of old racial prejudice while eliminating the need for any racists at all) to blame the working class for their own condition. (However, as per previous paragraph, if white people in the working class are dumbshits and keep voting for political parties like the NSDAP or Republican Party, they only have themselves to blame!)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 25 2019, @07:31AM
Remember the concept of outlawry? Same thing here. You don't get to do something like that and then claim protection from the very same sort of behavior you were just endorsing.
This is a specific case of the more generalized Paradox of Tolerance. Of course, your account is just here to shitpost and troll, so I don't expect its operator to, y'know, actually educate himself. The sad thing is, you're not even a *good* troll, and if anything your attempts are getting worse over time. Most trolls at least show *some* improvement as time goes on.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @12:49AM
My wife's son loved this ad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 25 2019, @02:31PM
https://tinyurl.com/excreata-in-a-month [tinyurl.com]