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.
I'm wearing PAMPERS!!
(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?