Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Most Racist Ad Ever?

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 8:50:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Some background - goat, Mountain Dew, beat-up waitress:
http://news.yahoo.com...

Video #1 is the ad in question.
Video #2 is some commentary on it.
The following link spots a "prequel" ad, which shows how the goat got there in the first place:
http://www.ispot.tv...

The ad was an internet ad created by "Tyler the Creator", who is no stranger to politically incorrectness:

Tyler has also been criticized for his graphic depictions of violence against women and his misogynistic lyrics.[35][36] Brent DiCrescenzo of Time Out Chicago writes that rape is a "predominant theme" of Goblin[37] and Hermione Hoby of The Guardian writes that Tyler's "rape and murder fantasies (are) graphic enough to send the vomit rising along with the bile."[38] The Fader tallied 68 uses of the term "bitch" over Goblin's 73 minutes.[39] Responding to Canadian indie pop duo Tegan and Sara's criticism of his lyrics,[40] Tyler tweeted: "If Tegan and Sara need some hard [d!ck], hit me up!"
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The company in question is Pepsico, which makes Mountain Dew.

Is this the most racist ad ever? Is this ad even racist? Apparently someone at CNN doesn't think so:
http://www.cnn.com...

Tyler is African American. The guys in the line up are his close friends. The goat's name is Felicia (yeah, wtf). The goat is the one the woman is scared of. The woman says "I don't think I can [dew] this...no!" Buy Mountain Dew.

Discuss.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 9:00:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is so dumb. Please do not make posts like this, and I'll reciprocate.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 9:16:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 9:00:31 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
This is so dumb. Please do not make posts like this, and I'll reciprocate.

If it makes you feel any better, after reading some of your posts, I typically do not read anything you initiate. I don't see any reason to ask you to stop, though. That really would be "dumb".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 11:46:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've seen comments on this ad elsewhere, and I noticed two things:
1. Why is it not racist that a white girl is beaten?
2. When shaming Tyler and Pepsi for creating/airing this, why does no one shame the actors?

Frankly, I don't like people calling ads racist, unless the message itself is. You only have thirty seconds to make your point, you don't have time to explain the bucking of stereotypes. For example, a nerdy kid being a bully, or a white woman and black man and latino child and asian child are all one family (all would be one race).

For the record, I don't understand this commercial.
It wasn't funny.
It didn't explain why I should buy, let alone want, Dew. At least in beer commercials, sexy ladies will dance with me if I drink it, therefore I should drink that beer if I want a good time. Apparently, if I want to be assualted, I should drink Dew.

Utterly stupid ad.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 2:05:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 11:46:33 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I've seen comments on this ad elsewhere, and I noticed two things:
1. Why is it not racist that a white girl is beaten?
2. When shaming Tyler and Pepsi for creating/airing this, why does no one shame the actors?

Frankly, I don't like people calling ads racist, unless the message itself is. You only have thirty seconds to make your point, you don't have time to explain the bucking of stereotypes. For example, a nerdy kid being a bully, or a white woman and black man and latino child and asian child are all one family (all would be one race).

For the record, I don't understand this commercial.
It wasn't funny.
It didn't explain why I should buy, let alone want, Dew. At least in beer commercials, sexy ladies will dance with me if I drink it, therefore I should drink that beer if I want a good time. Apparently, if I want to be assualted, I should drink Dew.

Utterly stupid ad.

I agree with your bewilderment, or at least the tone of your comment.

I can answer your questions:

1) It's not racist, it's misogynistic, which was the secondary charge after the racism accusation for this ad. The women in the 2nd video couldn't understand the appeal of the misogyny, and the part of the wiki I quoted is quite specific about Tyler's misogynistic lyrics.

My interpretation as to why it isn't specifically racist to beat a white woman is that apparently it doesn't matter what race you are as a woman, you are at elevated risk for receiving this kind of behavior simply for being a woman. In this sense the more pressing distinction is gender and the potential for misogyny than any race-specific behavioral characteristics.

I'm guessing though you already know all of this, and are just pointing out the potential for hypocrisy.

2) This goes to responsibility and accountability. Given that both Tyler and Pepsi are relatively high profile, they stand to lose much more upon being held accountable than the other players in this ad. It would set the most effective example to curtail future instances of such behavior. Also, more people know Pepsi, Mountain Dew, and Tyler, thus making this event newsworthy, thus more profitable for news organizations to air, etc...

We do not know whether or not the other actors were held accountable...it's a good question. Regardless, even if they were held accountable publicly, it would cause minimal impact.

---

On the bolded, I'm guessing you think this ad's message was not overtly racist, and was just overall ineffectual, uninteresting, and unappealing, unless one happens to be masochistic.

I don't get the ad either. I don't understand how it makes Mountain Dew an appealing product, unless it is to appeal to people who are accustomed to violence, lineups, and criminal behavior - all of which has "coolness" appeal in today's society, I would think.

That would be an interesting support for anyone who would think that society's going down the drain...or is it? After all, the ad got repealed shortly after it began airing.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 4:55:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your analysis was pretty spot on, and I agree.

Except, with the blaming of the actors.
Yes, they are not high profile, and they don't have deep pockets to sue. I get that.
But, without the actors (in this or any "racist" ad), the ad wouldn't exist. For this reason, they are potentially the worst culprit.

The actors allow a racist ad to come to fruition, and they directly benefit the most (i.e. only they are guaranteed a payday). They should be held accountable, always. Yet, they never are.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 10:17:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 4:55:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Your analysis was pretty spot on, and I agree.

Except, with the blaming of the actors.
Yes, they are not high profile, and they don't have deep pockets to sue. I get that.
But, without the actors (in this or any "racist" ad), the ad wouldn't exist. For this reason, they are potentially the worst culprit.

The actors allow a racist ad to come to fruition, and they directly benefit the most (i.e. only they are guaranteed a payday). They should be held accountable, always. Yet, they never are.

I gave this some thought and you've convinced me there's truth to this. Had Tyler's friends turned down the offer to star in this ad for fear of reprisal, then Tyler would have had to find other people to star in it, which would have been far less likely given that even his close friends wouldn't take the offer.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 10:31:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 5:38:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This was a pretty disgusting ad . . . It was racist and it supported domestic violence. Tyler should be fired.

lol, now to have fun with this.

I'm going to lay out a devil's advocate position.

This ad was indeed disgusting and prima facie racist and misogynistic. But the ad itself is NOT racist and NOT misogynistic. What the ad is portraying is racism and misogyny prevalent in society and is the epitome of artistic expression bringing these uncomfortable truths to light.

There is statistically significant evidence that African Americans and Latinos have higher rates of incarceration, so it is appropriate that the ad puts five African Americans on the line-up. If society takes offense to this, they should do something to ameliorate the underlying data, instead of sweeping such truths under the carpet as unpalatable.

Are women typically in one way or another cowed into silence when it comes to issues like rape and domestic violence? Absolutely - again, this is a statistically significant truism. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to show an infirmed woman scared out of her mind, so much so that she can't even DEW it - she can't call out that dirty goat in the line-up.

This same logic, the first order conclusion that KM and I reached beforehand, and the second order conclusion that I explain above, is why a movie like American Psycho is heralded not as promoting a mindless, misogynistic display of power and greed on Wall Street, but the opposite - a scathing critique of the mindless, misogynistic display of power and greed on Wall Street.

Supposedly through this logic, one would gain newfound respect for Mountain Dew, Pepsico, and Tyler the Creator for shedding light on this issue in such a profound manner. It's the same logic as to why people can watch American Psycho and gain newfound appreciation for New Order (the band), which featured prominently in the movie.

And really people, are you really going to take offense at a GOAT named FELICIA beating up on waitresses? And on that note, I have to go return some videos now.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 11:05:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 10:31:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/8/2013 5:38:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This was a pretty disgusting ad . . . It was racist and it supported domestic violence. Tyler should be fired.

lol, now to have fun with this.

I'm going to lay out a devil's advocate position.

This ad was indeed disgusting and prima facie racist and misogynistic. But the ad itself is NOT racist and NOT misogynistic. What the ad is portraying is racism and misogyny prevalent in society and is the epitome of artistic expression bringing these uncomfortable truths to light.

There is statistically significant evidence that African Americans and Latinos have higher rates of incarceration, so it is appropriate that the ad puts five African Americans on the line-up. If society takes offense to this, they should do something to ameliorate the underlying data, instead of sweeping such truths under the carpet as unpalatable.

Are women typically in one way or another cowed into silence when it comes to issues like rape and domestic violence? Absolutely - again, this is a statistically significant truism. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to show an infirmed woman scared out of her mind, so much so that she can't even DEW it - she can't call out that dirty goat in the line-up.

This same logic, the first order conclusion that KM and I reached beforehand, and the second order conclusion that I explain above, is why a movie like American Psycho is heralded not as promoting a mindless, misogynistic display of power and greed on Wall Street, but the opposite - a scathing critique of the mindless, misogynistic display of power and greed on Wall Street.

Supposedly through this logic, one would gain newfound respect for Mountain Dew, Pepsico, and Tyler the Creator for shedding light on this issue in such a profound manner. It's the same logic as to why people can watch American Psycho and gain newfound appreciation for New Order (the band), which featured prominently in the movie.

And really people, are you really going to take offense at a GOAT named FELICIA beating up on waitresses? And on that note, I have to go return some videos now.

This actually is sensible, Tyler and Pepsi could be making a political statement and be doing a satire on the societal 'norms' of the 21st century.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 5:51:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think mountain dew is some lemonish soft drink? Probably, their market research told them that it's not positioned properly as an adult drink or - most likely - it's considered too feminine. As teenage boys are the target market for soft drinks, the whole drama is a deliberate strategy to offend (women, not the target market) and be cancelled thereby ensuring heaps of publicity. Everyone loves to hate white women, of course. The goat is genius, because we have the joy of the beaten up blonde without the usual accompanying guilt and blame for men. By bringing in a famous (?) hiphop (?) artist, the corporation can separate itself from the decisions (and thereby not damage its other markets), and also falsely imply that the artist somehow defied corporate authority. By making it about the injustice of race, it marginalizes the protesters. Suddenly - the marketers no doubt hope - Mountain Dew becomes a tough, outrageous, edgy-yet-mainstream, funny beverage choice for young males, all without caffeine! Or maybe it does have caffeine. I don't know.

Yes, it's clever marketing, but there's nothing new here. Wrichcirw, why are you enabling this?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 6:01:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 10:31:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/8/2013 5:38:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This was a pretty disgusting ad . . . It was racist and it supported domestic violence. Tyler should be fired.

lol, now to have fun with this.

I'm going to lay out a devil's advocate position.

This ad was indeed disgusting and prima facie racist and misogynistic. But the ad itself is NOT racist and NOT misogynistic. What the ad is portraying is racism and misogyny prevalent in society and is the epitome of artistic expression bringing these uncomfortable truths to light.

There is statistically significant evidence that African Americans and Latinos have higher rates of incarceration, so it is appropriate that the ad puts five African Americans on the line-up. If society takes offense to this, they should do something to ameliorate the underlying data, instead of sweeping such truths under the carpet as unpalatable.

Yes, African Americans have a higher rate of incarceration within the race, but there are more Caucasians in jail than African Americans. If the prison lineup was supposed to reflect the content of the prison, the majority of the people in the lineup should have been Caucasian. This indicates that the goal was not to "reflect reality" but rather to play upon a stereotype. This observation is further strengthened by the fact that all of the African Americans in the lineup were associated with some sort of ghetto activity. It was demonizing African Americans and their culture.
Are women typically in one way or another cowed into silence when it comes to issues like rape and domestic violence? Absolutely - again, this is a statistically significant truism. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to show an infirmed woman scared out of her mind, so much so that she can't even DEW it - she can't call out that dirty goat in the line-up.

The issue with this is the presentation. The ad was not just saying that women are silenced on these issues; rather, it was making light of the silencing. It has nothing to do with a desire to reflect reality; rather, it was actually championing the goat's actions. The end of the ad explicitly associated the goat and his bravado with Mountain Dew. It is a strawman to say that I meant that showing a woman who was assaulted is sexist. That is not necessarily a misogynist action. It is sexist to promote this type of violence or to make it seem humorous, which is what the commercial did.
This same logic, the first order conclusion that KM and I reached beforehand, and the second order conclusion that I explain above, is why a movie like American Psycho is heralded not as promoting a mindless, misogynistic display of power and greed on Wall Street, but the opposite - a scathing critique of the mindless, misogynistic display of power and greed on Wall Street.

Ok, and it's pretty clear that this ad was not a scathing critique unless you think they were criticizing their own product by associating it with promotion of violence and racism.
Supposedly through this logic, one would gain newfound respect for Mountain Dew, Pepsico, and Tyler the Creator for shedding light on this issue in such a profound manner. It's the same logic as to why people can watch American Psycho and gain newfound appreciation for New Order (the band), which featured prominently in the movie.

No, your argument is based on a strawman attack. It's not convincing at al.
And really people, are you really going to take offense at a GOAT named FELICIA beating up on waitresses? And on that note, I have to go return some videos now.

You're strawmanning again. I'm not offended because a goat assaulted a woman in the ad. I am offended because the goat was glorified for assaulting her and cowing her into silence. I am also offended that this situation was somehow suppose to be funny. I wonder what "Tyler the Creator" would think about an ad that promoted the enslavement of African Americans or made light of slavery. My guess is that he wouldn't like it.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 6:06:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll give another example. I don't think that Game of Thrones is sexist, for example, even though almost every woman in the books are disempowered and treated as worthless by the men because the books aren't advocating that type of destructive behavior; they merely describe it so that they can portray the actions of the women, who are actually the strongest characters, in response to this degradation. If the books supported rape and disempowerment of women, I would consider them misogynist. It's not misogynist to portray the state of affairs with respect to women in a medieval society, but it is misogynist to support those state of affairs. This ad was not descriptive; it supported violence and racism and made light of violence.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 6:07:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 5:51:03 AM, rross wrote:
I think mountain dew is some lemonish soft drink? Probably, their market research told them that it's not positioned properly as an adult drink or - most likely - it's considered too feminine. As teenage boys are the target market for soft drinks, the whole drama is a deliberate strategy to offend (women, not the target market) and be cancelled thereby ensuring heaps of publicity. Everyone loves to hate white women, of course. The goat is genius, because we have the joy of the beaten up blonde without the usual accompanying guilt and blame for men. By bringing in a famous (?) hiphop (?) artist, the corporation can separate itself from the decisions (and thereby not damage its other markets), and also falsely imply that the artist somehow defied corporate authority. By making it about the injustice of race, it marginalizes the protesters. Suddenly - the marketers no doubt hope - Mountain Dew becomes a tough, outrageous, edgy-yet-mainstream, funny beverage choice for young males, all without caffeine! Or maybe it does have caffeine. I don't know.

Yes, it's clever marketing, but there's nothing new here. Wrichcirw, why are you enabling this?

I don't know whom they were appealing to with this ad. I doubt anybody was inspired to drink this except for maybe a few MRAs who support violence against women.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 11:44:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 5:51:03 AM, rross wrote:
I think mountain dew is some lemonish soft drink? Probably, their market research told them that it's not positioned properly as an adult drink or - most likely - it's considered too feminine.

This is lol and pointless without substantiation.

As teenage boys are the target market for soft drinks, the whole drama is a deliberate strategy to offend (women, not the target market) and be cancelled thereby ensuring heaps of publicity. Everyone loves to hate white women, of course. The goat is genius, because we have the joy of the beaten up blonde without the usual accompanying guilt and blame for men. By bringing in a famous (?) hiphop (?) artist, the corporation can separate itself from the decisions (and thereby not damage its other markets), and also falsely imply that the artist somehow defied corporate authority.

This is a good explanation of the prima facie offensive nature of the ad.

By making it about the injustice of race, it marginalizes the protesters.

No, the main protesters were those decrying racism. Apparently this ad was tangential to another ad by another hip hop artist (Lil Wayne) that compared the lynching of the southern black man (Emmett Till) who started the civil rights movement to a woman's vagina, or something along those lines.

Suddenly - the marketers no doubt hope - Mountain Dew becomes a tough, outrageous, edgy-yet-mainstream, funny beverage choice for young males, all without caffeine! Or maybe it does have caffeine. I don't know.

Mountain Dew is the precursor to the Monster line of energy drinks, which are loaded with guarine, taurine, caffeine, etc... Monster not only looks like Mountain Dew, it kind of tastes like it too.

Yes, it's clever marketing, but there's nothing new here. Wrichcirw, why are you enabling this?

The answer is obvious in your response. Had Pepsico authorized this ad for the reasons you cite, it obviously backfired, wholly and completely. Corporations are not known for making mistakes like this - there is usually a lot of marketing research that aims to prevent exactly this type of event from occurring. Brand name recognition is widely recognized to be at times worth more than the manufacturing of the actual product, if you were to take it from the perspective of a corporate accountant.

Therefore, this is noteworthy from several perspectives, not only for analysing whether the prima facie charges of racism and misogyny are true, but also the consequences for a corporate brand that has global reach.

Obviously you think this ad was racist and even more so misogynistic. I've laid out a devil's advocate position stating the opposite. Care to engage in that opinion?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 12:04:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 6:01:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:31:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/8/2013 5:38:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This was a pretty disgusting ad . . . It was racist and it supported domestic violence. Tyler should be fired.

lol, now to have fun with this.

I'm going to lay out a devil's advocate position.

This ad was indeed disgusting and prima facie racist and misogynistic. But the ad itself is NOT racist and NOT misogynistic. What the ad is portraying is racism and misogyny prevalent in society and is the epitome of artistic expression bringing these uncomfortable truths to light.

There is statistically significant evidence that African Americans and Latinos have higher rates of incarceration, so it is appropriate that the ad puts five African Americans on the line-up. If society takes offense to this, they should do something to ameliorate the underlying data, instead of sweeping such truths under the carpet as unpalatable.

Yes, African Americans have a higher rate of incarceration within the race, but there are more Caucasians in jail than African Americans. If the prison lineup was supposed to reflect the content of the prison, the majority of the people in the lineup should have been Caucasian. This indicates that the goal was not to "reflect reality" but rather to play upon a stereotype. This observation is further strengthened by the fact that all of the African Americans in the lineup were associated with some sort of ghetto activity. It was demonizing African Americans and their culture.

Good counter. :)

1) However, a line-up is hardly indicative of the contents of a prison. A line-up is all about suspicion. So, the question would then become "Are African Americans more suspect of committing crimes than other racial groups (i.e. subject to more profiling)?" I do believe the affirmative is also a statistically significant truism.

2) Regarding demonizing African Americans and their culture, this was performed by a prominent African American artist widely accepted in the African American community. That would lessen if not wholly negate the charge of demonization, I would think.

Could this artist have been demonizing an actual aspect of the culture? Sure. Maybe the statement was that this kind of behavior is not acceptable...but it is what it is. In this sense, the charge of demonization would only hold weight if the depiction of societal truths was inaccurate.

Similarly American Psycho demonizes the yuppie culture of Wall Street - Patrick Bateman scowling like a vampire after dropping a chainsaw on a woman from 6 stories up to satiate his bloodlust is about as ridiculous as a goat named Felicia beating up on a white waitress. Yet, that movie is heralded as a satirical masterpiece and (after a lot of protest from feminists) heralded as a feminist work - the director of that movie was a woman and if I remember from her commentary a prominent feminist. If it worked for American Psycho, why not this ad as well?

Are women typically in one way or another cowed into silence when it comes to issues like rape and domestic violence? Absolutely - again, this is a statistically significant truism. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to show an infirmed woman scared out of her mind, so much so that she can't even DEW it - she can't call out that dirty goat in the line-up.

The issue with this is the presentation. The ad was not just saying that women are silenced on these issues; rather, it was making light of the silencing.

Yes. This would draw light to a woman's plight.

It has nothing to do with a desire to reflect reality; rather, it was actually championing the goat's actions. The end of the ad explicitly associated the goat and his bravado with Mountain Dew.

Was it? It was the white man next to the infirmed woman who was drinking the Dew, not the goat.

It is a strawman to say that I meant that showing a woman who was assaulted is sexist. That is not necessarily a misogynist action. It is sexist to promote this type of violence or to make it seem humorous, which is what the commercial did.

Is the ad promoting violence? I would that is its own strawman argument.

This same logic, the first order conclusion that KM and I reached beforehand, and the second order conclusion that I explain above, is why a movie like American Psycho is heralded not as promoting a mindless, misogynistic display of power and greed on Wall Street, but the opposite - a scathing critique of the mindless, misogynistic display of power and greed on Wall Street.

Ok, and it's pretty clear that this ad was not a scathing critique unless you think they were criticizing their own product by associating it with promotion of violence and racism.

Oh? You don't think people would associate the Dew with this newfound insight? Your assumptions of promoting violence are unsubstantiated. When the goat attacked the waitress, the African American spectator turned from laughing at the "nasty" goat to embarrassment. This attitude would hardly promote violence.

Supposedly through this logic, one would gain newfound respect for Mountain Dew, Pepsico, and Tyler the Creator for shedding light on this issue in such a profound manner. It's the same logic as to why people can watch American Psycho and gain newfound appreciation for New Order (the band), which featured prominently in the movie.

No, your argument is based on a strawman attack. It's not convincing at al.

I've dismantled most of your argument. Your turn.

And really people, are you really going to take offense at a GOAT named FELICIA beating up on waitresses? And on that note, I have to go return some videos now.

You're strawmanning again. I'm not offended because a goat assaulted a woman in the ad. I am offended because the goat was glorified for assaulting her and cowing her into silence. I am also offended that this situation was somehow suppose to be funny. I wonder what "Tyler the Creator" would think about an ad that promoted the enslavement of African Americans or made light of slavery. My guess is that he wouldn't like it.

Substantiate glorification.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 12:12:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 12:04:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/10/2013 6:01:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:31:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/8/2013 5:38:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

Yes, African Americans have a higher rate of incarceration within the race, but there are more Caucasians in jail than African Americans. If the prison lineup was supposed to reflect the content of the prison, the majority of the people in the lineup should have been Caucasian. This indicates that the goal was not to "reflect reality" but rather to play upon a stereotype. This observation is further strengthened by the fact that all of the African Americans in the lineup were associated with some sort of ghetto activity. It was demonizing African Americans and their culture.

I'm also going to add that per capita is an extremely important metric, independent of gross values. The first and second derivatives of a statistic typically convey much more information about that statistic than the basic data. Wall Street operates almost wholly from a first derivative perspective.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:04:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is it still racist if it's a black guy who chose to have the line up composed entirely of other black men?

It's a pretty dumb commercial, but I can think of at least 5 commercials more racist than this.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:32:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 11:44:16 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/10/2013 5:51:03 AM, rross wrote:
I think mountain dew is some lemonish soft drink? Probably, their market research told them that it's not positioned properly as an adult drink or - most likely - it's considered too feminine.

This is lol and pointless without substantiation.

lol, I just want to say that I didn't mean to be offensive here...it's just amazing how culture at times simply does not translate.

Despite its humble citrus roots, Mountain Dew has a reputation for being the most sugar-loaded and caffeinated carbonated beverages in America. It's typically marketed to the edgy youth set. The ads from Tyler, if not for the backlash, are typical of the brand. To my knowledge it does not want to place itself in the "adult drink" category.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 1:32:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 1:04:03 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Is it still racist if it's a black guy who chose to have the line up composed entirely of other black men?

Or is it coincidental that the other men happened to be his close friends?

It's a pretty dumb commercial, but I can think of at least 5 commercials more racist than this.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 11:39:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 6:01:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:31:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/8/2013 5:38:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This was a pretty disgusting ad . . . It was racist and it supported domestic violence. Tyler should be fired.

lol, now to have fun with this.

I'm going to lay out a devil's advocate position.

This ad was indeed disgusting and prima facie racist and misogynistic. But the ad itself is NOT racist and NOT misogynistic. What the ad is portraying is racism and misogyny prevalent in society and is the epitome of artistic expression bringing these uncomfortable truths to light.

There is statistically significant evidence that African Americans and Latinos have higher rates of incarceration, so it is appropriate that the ad puts five African Americans on the line-up. If society takes offense to this, they should do something to ameliorate the underlying data, instead of sweeping such truths under the carpet as unpalatable.

Yes, African Americans have a higher rate of incarceration within the race, but there are more Caucasians in jail than African Americans. If the prison lineup was supposed to reflect the content of the prison, the majority of the people in the lineup should have been Caucasian. This indicates that the goal was not to "reflect reality" but rather to play upon a stereotype. This observation is further strengthened by the fact that all of the African Americans in the lineup were associated with some sort of ghetto activity. It was demonizing African Americans and their culture.

I just want to point out that lineups are generally uniform by nature. The victim gives some vague traits which they remembered, skin color most likely being one of them, and the lineup is composed of suspects which match the parameters established by witness/victim testimony. So a lineup full of thuggish black men isn't all that alarming, seeing as the woman probably would have remembered her attacker's skin tone and apparel at the least. That said I thought that the ad was stupid, and can't really compare it American Psycho, which was an obviously deliberate skewering of Wall Street culture, to this piece, which could be stretched in order to be interpreted that way but could much more easily be seen as coarse, puerile nonsense. When it comes to a Mountain Dew commercial I am much more likely to lend credence to the latter theory, as the target audience isn't usually one to appreciate deep, biting satire, and certain elements are not necessary in the former scenario while facilitating the latter.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 1:23:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 11:39:01 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/10/2013 6:01:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:31:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/8/2013 5:38:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This was a pretty disgusting ad . . . It was racist and it supported domestic violence. Tyler should be fired.

lol, now to have fun with this.

I'm going to lay out a devil's advocate position.

This ad was indeed disgusting and prima facie racist and misogynistic. But the ad itself is NOT racist and NOT misogynistic. What the ad is portraying is racism and misogyny prevalent in society and is the epitome of artistic expression bringing these uncomfortable truths to light.

There is statistically significant evidence that African Americans and Latinos have higher rates of incarceration, so it is appropriate that the ad puts five African Americans on the line-up. If society takes offense to this, they should do something to ameliorate the underlying data, instead of sweeping such truths under the carpet as unpalatable.

Yes, African Americans have a higher rate of incarceration within the race, but there are more Caucasians in jail than African Americans. If the prison lineup was supposed to reflect the content of the prison, the majority of the people in the lineup should have been Caucasian. This indicates that the goal was not to "reflect reality" but rather to play upon a stereotype. This observation is further strengthened by the fact that all of the African Americans in the lineup were associated with some sort of ghetto activity. It was demonizing African Americans and their culture.

I just want to point out that lineups are generally uniform by nature. The victim gives some vague traits which they remembered, skin color most likely being one of them, and the lineup is composed of suspects which match the parameters established by witness/victim testimony. So a lineup full of thuggish black men isn't all that alarming, seeing as the woman probably would have remembered her attacker's skin tone and apparel at the least.

As always I appreciate an astute observation.

That said I thought that the ad was stupid, and can't really compare it American Psycho, which was an obviously deliberate skewering of Wall Street culture, to this piece, which could be stretched in order to be interpreted that way but could much more easily be seen as coarse, puerile nonsense. When it comes to a Mountain Dew commercial I am much more likely to lend credence to the latter theory, as the target audience isn't usually one to appreciate deep, biting satire, and certain elements are not necessary in the former scenario while facilitating the latter.

My understanding of American Psycho was that it was originally mistaken to be a glorification of yuppie culture...in a similar vein, perhaps this ad is currently being mistaken as a glorification of the ghetto stereotype.

On the underlined, they aren't drug users man, lol. They have brains...:D In fact, their brains are probably on overdrive because of the ridiculous amounts of sugar and caffeine they're ingesting.

Some more potential proof that people are actually thinking about this:

This video (which I'm amazed I watched in its entirety) is from the apparent leading advocate of getting this ad repealed. He agrees with the prima facie notion that this ad is course, demeaning, and portrays ignorance of the damage done by perpetuating and potentially glorifying stereotypes. (you don't have to watch it to discuss, lol)

This video has 100 likes, and over 300 dis-likes (I know, extremely questionable methodology I'm using here), meaning that most people actually disagree with the prima facie viewpoint, and are actually advocating critical thinking on this matter.

Keep in mind that this is serious business here. Mountain Dew is a multi-billion dollar brand.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 5:29:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 11:39:01 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/10/2013 6:01:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:31:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/8/2013 5:38:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This was a pretty disgusting ad . . . It was racist and it supported domestic violence. Tyler should be fired.

lol, now to have fun with this.

I'm going to lay out a devil's advocate position.

This ad was indeed disgusting and prima facie racist and misogynistic. But the ad itself is NOT racist and NOT misogynistic. What the ad is portraying is racism and misogyny prevalent in society and is the epitome of artistic expression bringing these uncomfortable truths to light.

There is statistically significant evidence that African Americans and Latinos have higher rates of incarceration, so it is appropriate that the ad puts five African Americans on the line-up. If society takes offense to this, they should do something to ameliorate the underlying data, instead of sweeping such truths under the carpet as unpalatable.

Yes, African Americans have a higher rate of incarceration within the race, but there are more Caucasians in jail than African Americans. If the prison lineup was supposed to reflect the content of the prison, the majority of the people in the lineup should have been Caucasian. This indicates that the goal was not to "reflect reality" but rather to play upon a stereotype. This observation is further strengthened by the fact that all of the African Americans in the lineup were associated with some sort of ghetto activity. It was demonizing African Americans and their culture.

I just want to point out that lineups are generally uniform by nature. The victim gives some vague traits which they remembered, skin color most likely being one of them, and the lineup is composed of suspects which match the parameters established by witness/victim testimony. So a lineup full of thuggish black men isn't all that alarming, seeing as the woman probably would have remembered her attacker's skin tone and apparel at the least. That said I thought that the ad was stupid, and can't really compare it American Psycho, which was an obviously deliberate skewering of Wall Street culture, to this piece, which could be stretched in order to be interpreted that way but could much more easily be seen as coarse, puerile nonsense. When it comes to a Mountain Dew commercial I am much more likely to lend credence to the latter theory, as the target audience isn't usually one to appreciate deep, biting satire, and certain elements are not necessary in the former scenario while facilitating the latter.

I was just about to make your comment about satire; the target audience was the average/less than average American male who probably does not care for social critiques.

Also, if the intent was to portray the lineups accurately and put people who look similarly together for identification purposes, that just makes the commercial even worse for putting African Americans males in a line with a goat. It was basically lowering them to the status of an animal.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 5:31:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 1:04:03 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Is it still racist if it's a black guy who chose to have the line up composed entirely of other black men?

Um, so African Americans cannot be racist against people of their own race? Even conservatives will tell you that this is possible.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 5:41:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/10/2013 12:04:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/10/2013 6:01:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:31:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/8/2013 5:38:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
This was a pretty disgusting ad . . . It was racist and it supported domestic violence. Tyler should be fired.

lol, now to have fun with this.

I'm going to lay out a devil's advocate position.

This ad was indeed disgusting and prima facie racist and misogynistic. But the ad itself is NOT racist and NOT misogynistic. What the ad is portraying is racism and misogyny prevalent in society and is the epitome of artistic expression bringing these uncomfortable truths to light.

There is statistically significant evidence that African Americans and Latinos have higher rates of incarceration, so it is appropriate that the ad puts five African Americans on the line-up. If society takes offense to this, they should do something to ameliorate the underlying data, instead of sweeping such truths under the carpet as unpalatable.

Yes, African Americans have a higher rate of incarceration within the race, but there are more Caucasians in jail than African Americans. If the prison lineup was supposed to reflect the content of the prison, the majority of the people in the lineup should have been Caucasian. This indicates that the goal was not to "reflect reality" but rather to play upon a stereotype. This observation is further strengthened by the fact that all of the African Americans in the lineup were associated with some sort of ghetto activity. It was demonizing African Americans and their culture.

Good counter. :)

1) However, a line-up is hardly indicative of the contents of a prison. A line-up is all about suspicion. So, the question would then become "Are African Americans more suspect of committing crimes than other racial groups (i.e. subject to more profiling)?" I do believe the affirmative is also a statistically significant truism.

Um, no, they aren't more suspect of committing crimes, otherwise they would not comprise a lower percentage of convicted inmates.
2) Regarding demonizing African Americans and their culture, this was performed by a prominent African American artist widely accepted in the African American community. That would lessen if not wholly negate the charge of demonization, I would think.

Why? Even conservatives admit that you can hate yourself for belonging to a particular race.
Could this artist have been demonizing an actual aspect of the culture? Sure. Maybe the statement was that this kind of behavior is not acceptable...but it is what it is. In this sense, the charge of demonization would only hold weight if the depiction of societal truths was inaccurate.

If the function was to criticize domestic violence in the African American community, the goat would not have been glorified at the end of the commercial.
Similarly American Psycho demonizes the yuppie culture of Wall Street - Patrick Bateman scowling like a vampire after dropping a chainsaw on a woman from 6 stories up to satiate his bloodlust is about as ridiculous as a goat named Felicia beating up on a white waitress. Yet, that movie is heralded as a satirical masterpiece and (after a lot of protest from feminists) heralded as a feminist work - the director of that movie was a woman and if I remember from her commentary a prominent feminist. If it worked for American Psycho, why not this ad as well?

The target audience is very different. American Psycho was not targeted at Americans with sub-par intelligence who don't care about social critiques. This commercial was.
Are women typically in one way or another cowed into silence when it comes to issues like rape and domestic violence? Absolutely - again, this is a statistically significant truism. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to show an infirmed woman scared out of her mind, so much so that she can't even DEW it - she can't call out that dirty goat in the line-up.

The issue with this is the presentation. The ad was not just saying that women are silenced on these issues; rather, it was making light of the silencing.

Yes. This would draw light to a woman's plight.

That's not what it said. "Making light" of something means that you are making fun of it.
It has nothing to do with a desire to reflect reality; rather, it was actually championing the goat's actions. The end of the ad explicitly associated the goat and his bravado with Mountain Dew.

Was it? It was the white man next to the infirmed woman who was drinking the Dew, not the goat.

At the end of the commercial, the goat was the individual promoting Mountain Dew. Also, the goat is the symbol of Mountain Dew. See this video for evidence: https://www.youtube.com... That commercial was a sequel to other goat commercials. The policeman is not the face of Mountain Dew.
It is a strawman to say that I meant that showing a woman who was assaulted is sexist. That is not necessarily a misogynist action. It is sexist to promote this type of violence or to make it seem humorous, which is what the commercial did.

Is the ad promoting violence? I would that is its own strawman argument.

Yes, it is. It supports the goat, who is the face of Mountain Dew. The goat commits domestic violence and gets away with it.
This same logic, the first order conclusion that KM and I reached beforehand, and the second order conclusion that I explain above, is why a movie like American Psycho is heralded not as promoting a mindless, misogynistic display of power and greed on Wall Street, but the opposite - a scathing critique of the mindless, misogynistic display of power and greed on Wall Street.

Ok, and it's pretty clear that this ad was not a scathing critique unless you think they were criticizing their own product by associating it with promotion of violence and racism.

Oh? You don't think people would associate the Dew with this newfound insight? Your assumptions of promoting violence are unsubstantiated. When the goat attacked the waitress, the African American spectator turned from laughing at the "nasty" goat to embarrassment. This attitude would hardly promote violence.

Um, I don't see that anywhere; you basically made that up, but whatever. The goat is the face of MD and he is promoting the drink at the end of the commercial. It is not criticizing him at all.
Supposedly through this logic, one would gain newfound respect for Mountain Dew, Pepsico, and Tyler the Creator for shedding light on this issue in such a profound manner. It's the same logic as to why people can watch American Psycho and gain newfound appreciation for New Order (the band), which featured prominently in the movie.

No, your argument is based on a strawman attack. It's not convincing at al.

I've dismantled most of your argument. Your turn.

No, you haven't. You've just said that it could possibly be a social critique, but given the target audience (American men with sup-par intelligence who probably don't know what "social critique" even means) and given the glorification of the goat, the mascot of MD, this is false.
And really people, are you really going to take offense at a GOAT named FELICIA beating up on waitresses? And on that note, I have to go return some videos now.

You're strawmanning again. I'm not offended because a goat assaulted a woman in the ad. I am offended because the goat was glorified for assaulting her and cowing her into silence. I am also offended that this situation was somehow suppose to be funny. I wonder what "Tyler the Creator" would think about an ad that promoted the enslavement of African Americans or made light of slavery. My guess is that he wouldn't like it.

Substantiate glorificati
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 9:33:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 5:41:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/10/2013 12:04:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/10/2013 6:01:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/8/2013 10:31:08 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/8/2013 5:38:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

Um, no, they aren't more suspect of committing crimes, otherwise they would not comprise a lower percentage of convicted inmates.

Ok, I'm no longer going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and now will just simply criticize your perspective for leaving out per capita statistics. Are you saying that wholly ignoring proportionality is actually conducive to objective analysis?

Take two barrels of apples. One has 1,000 apples in it, another has 10.

In the first barrel, 100 apples are rotten. In the second barrel, all 10 apples are rotten. Would you seriously say that the first barrel is "more rotten" than the second barrel? Because that is how your argument is playing out.

2) Regarding demonizing African Americans and their culture, this was performed by a prominent African American artist widely accepted in the African American community. That would lessen if not wholly negate the charge of demonization, I would think.

Why? Even conservatives admit that you can hate yourself for belonging to a particular race.

So, the alternative is to champion your imperfections, even if/when they are self-destructive?

Could this artist have been demonizing an actual aspect of the culture? Sure. Maybe the statement was that this kind of behavior is not acceptable...but it is what it is. In this sense, the charge of demonization would only hold weight if the depiction of societal truths was inaccurate.

If the function was to criticize domestic violence in the African American community, the goat would not have been glorified at the end of the commercial.

Again, substantiate glorification. You did not do so in your response. Charges of glorifying violence or racism or what not are wholly unsubstantiated.

Similarly American Psycho demonizes the yuppie culture of Wall Street - Patrick Bateman scowling like a vampire after dropping a chainsaw on a woman from 6 stories up to satiate his bloodlust is about as ridiculous as a goat named Felicia beating up on a white waitress. Yet, that movie is heralded as a satirical masterpiece and (after a lot of protest from feminists) heralded as a feminist work - the director of that movie was a woman and if I remember from her commentary a prominent feminist. If it worked for American Psycho, why not this ad as well?

The target audience is very different. American Psycho was not targeted at Americans with sub-par intelligence who don't care about social critiques. This commercial was.

Your comment here is extremely racist, bigoted, and stereotypical. Do all Americans who drink Mountain Dew have "sub-par intelligence" and "don't care about social critiques"? What basis do you have for such a blanket assertion?

Given that it is primarily African Americans portrayed in this commercial, if one were to assume that this specific ad targeted the African American audience, your statement comes off as something far worse in bigotry and racism than any statement this ad could be making.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt again and give you a chance to clarify your point here, which prima facie is a monstrous abomination.

Are women typically in one way or another cowed into silence when it comes to issues like rape and domestic violence? Absolutely - again, this is a statistically significant truism. Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate to show an infirmed woman scared out of her mind, so much so that she can't even DEW it - she can't call out that dirty goat in the line-up.

The issue with this is the presentation. The ad was not just saying that women are silenced on these issues; rather, it was making light of the silencing.

Yes. This would draw light to a woman's plight.

That's not what it said. "Making light" of something means that you are making fun of it.

Prove it. I will easily contend that you are wholly mistaken here:

Making Light

9. Spiritual awareness; illumination.
10.
a. Something that provides information or clarification: threw some light on the question.
b. A state of awareness or understanding, especially as derived from a particular source: in the light of experience.
11. Public attention; general knowledge: brought the scandal to light.
12. A way of looking at or considering a matter; an aspect: saw the situation in a different light.
13. Archaic Eyesight.
14. lights One's individual opinions, choices, or standards: acted according to their own lights.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

If this is how you argue, then it would follow that many of your statements do not make any sense, which has been my experience with you.

It has nothing to do with a desire to reflect reality; rather, it was actually championing the goat's actions. The end of the ad explicitly associated the goat and his bravado with Mountain Dew.

Was it? It was the white man next to the infirmed woman who was drinking the Dew, not the goat.

At the end of the commercial, the goat was the individual promoting Mountain Dew. Also, the goat is the symbol of Mountain Dew. See this video for evidence: https://www.youtube.com... That commercial was a sequel to other goat commercials. The policeman is not the face of Mountain Dew.

That was not a sequel commercial, it was a PREQUEL commercial. It establishes this goat's behavior, which is obviously not law abiding.

Had that ad been a stand-alone ad or as you contend a "sequel", then I would agree with you that the goat is glorifying criminal behavior, etc., and your comments would hold. However, it's almost impossible for this ad to be a sequel. The ad in question in the OP just came out days ago. There's nothing following it.

It is a strawman to say that I meant that showing a woman who was assaulted is sexist. That is not necessarily a misogynist action. It is sexist to promote this type of violence or to make it seem humorous, which is what the commercial did.

Is the ad promoting violence? I would that is its own strawman argument.

Yes, it is. It supports the goat, who is the face of Mountain Dew. The goat commits domestic violence and gets away with it.

1) This is not domestic violence, lol. The goat is not in a relationship with a random waitress in a restaurant.
2) The goat is hardly getting away with anything. We do not know the results of this lineup and the goat's criminal behavior.

This same logic, the first order conclusion that KM and I reached beforehand, and the second order conclusion that I explain above, is why a movie like American Psycho is heralded not as promoting a mindless, misogynistic display of power and greed on Wall Street, but the opposite - a scathing critique of the mindless, misogynistic display of power and greed on Wall Street.

Ok, and it's pretty clear that this ad was not a scathing critique unless you think they were criticizing their own product by associating it with promotion of violence and racism.

Oh? You don't think people would associate the Dew with this newfound insight? Your assumptions of promoting violence are unsubstantiated. When the goat attacked the waitress, the African American spectator turned from laughing at the "nasty" goat to embarrassment. This attitude would hardly promote violence.

Um, I don't see that anywhere; you basically made that up, but whatever. The goat is the face of MD and he is promoting the drink at the end of the commercial. It is not criticizing him at all.

Sigh...learn to read the OP. It is the 3rd video, which was not on youtube so appeared as a link. My statement stands.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 9:36:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 5:41:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/10/2013 12:04:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Supposedly through this logic, one would gain newfound respect for Mountain Dew, Pepsico, and Tyler the Creator for shedding light on this issue in such a profound manner. It's the same logic as to why people can watch American Psycho and gain newfound appreciation for New Order (the band), which featured prominently in the movie.

No, your argument is based on a strawman attack. It's not convincing at al.

I've dismantled most of your argument. Your turn.

No, you haven't. You've just said that it could possibly be a social critique, but given the target audience (American men with sup-par intelligence who probably don't know what "social critique" even means) and given the glorification of the goat, the mascot of MD, this is false.

lol, I did not dismantle my own argument, I dismantled YOUR argument, which was that beyond prima facie, this ad is indeed racist and misogynistic.

I would agree that GIVEN THE GLORIFICATION OF THE GOAT, your arguments MIGHT follow. However, you've yet to substantiate glorification.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?