Gillette’s wonderfully woke new commercial

[Amused]

I always find the whataboutism hilarious.

Black people protest the alarming frequency their unarmed black men are killed by police and call it "black lives matter." White people respond with "all lives matter" and white cops respond with "blue lives matter."

And in this very thread. We have the specific topic of "toxic masculinity" addressed with a call to stand against bullying, abuse and misogyny.

And people ask why there isn't a commercial about "toxic women."

It's like going to a conference about HIV and screaming "what about cancer!"

It's called deflection. Whataboutism.

And it is an attempt to steer the conversation away from the intended topic.

The real topic is why are they steering?

 

[Vic]

Of course I consider such things. I have stated a few times on here that I'm not an ardent admirer of Trump. But, unlike some on here, I've not lost my sanity when it comes to discussing issues. Not saying that I'm always right. Not saying that I'm unwilling to learn from people with differing opinions. I've criticized the political elites on the right several times on this board. I just can't deal with the my sh*t don't stink attitude that most of the elites on the left have these days.

'Toxic masculinity' has NOTHING to do with masculinity. Those types are plainly and simply scum.

There. Happy now? Nah, you're not. The only thing acceptable to the left is total submission to their ideas without any form of disagreement. I'll be content to be little old me. I do my best to live my MLK's dream to judge people by their character, not by identity politics and politically approved victimhood.

That too is unacceptable to some on the left these days.

This is why I stay away. It has NOTHING to do with our current president.

Who is it that you believe has been arguing here that 'toxic masculinity' is inherent to masculinity and thus any mention of toxic masculinity is an offense to all that is masculine?

Your 2nd paragraph is just bizarre paranoia. I would hate to live in a world where everyone agreed with me. That is probably the last thing I would ever want. How could you learn anything new? Where would new ideas come from? How could you change? A world of perfect agreement sounds like hell to me.

I propose to you that it might be possible that you believe what you said because of the reactions you probably get from what you say and how you say it. Making generalizing and obviously false statements is hardly any way to a start a productive discussion.

 

[realibrad]

Who is it that you believe has been arguing here that 'toxic masculinity' is inherent to masculinity and thus any mention of toxic masculinity is an offense to all that is masculine?

Your 2nd paragraph is just bizarre paranoia. I would hate to live in a world where everyone agreed with me. That is probably the last thing I would ever want. How could you learn anything new? Where would new ideas come from? How could you change? A world of perfect agreement sounds like hell to me.

I propose to you that it might be possible that you believe what you said because of the reactions you probably get from what you say and how you say it. Making generalizing and obviously false statements is hardly any way to a start a productive discussion.

@pmv does. Its why I said so before.

 

[Vic]

@pmv does. Its why I said so before.

And I still don't care. If you have a problem with that individual, bring it up with them.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Words have meaning.

When the narrator states that “some” men are already doing the right thing, it is by default asserting that the majority has not.

I always find the whataboutism hilarious.

Black people protest the alarming frequency their unarmed black men are killed by police and call it "black lives matter." White people respond with "all lives matter" and white cops respond with "blue lives matter."

And in this very thread. We have the specific topic of "toxic masculinity" addressed with a call to stand against bullying, abuse and misogyny.

And people ask why there isn't a commercial about "toxic women."

It's like going to a conference about HIV and screaming "what about cancer!"

It's called deflection. Whataboutism.

And it is an attempt to steer the conversation away from the intended topic.

The real topic is why are they steering?

I believe some of us are steering the topic towards criticizing a tone deaf and poorly executed ad, that is currently trending as one of the most disliked videos on YouTube and even SNL decided to parody, quite successfully, using the Kool Aid man (oh yeah!). There have been numerous business articles pointing out why Gillette failed where Nike succeeded.

Who is trying to steer the narrative exactly?

 

[HurleyBird]

I always find the whataboutism hilarious.

We have the specific topic of "toxic masculinity" addressed with a call to stand against bullying, abuse and misogyny.

And people ask why there isn't a commercial about "toxic women."

Sigh... most of you guys wouldn't know a fallacy if it hit you square in the face. That isn't whataboutism, nor is it fallacious. It's pretty much the opposite. Using the same argument while replacing the object on which the argument is being made for so that the entire thing goes against instead of with one's ideological position is an accepted way to test for consistency. And it's usually one of the best ways when dealing with individuals who aren't hopelessly cognitively dissonant to get them to altar their position, assuming they don't agree with both variants.

 

[realibrad]

And I still don't care. If you have a problem with that individual, bring it up with them.

Are you kidding?

You literally asked this...

"Who is it that you believe has been arguing here that 'toxic masculinity' is inherent to masculinity and thus any mention of toxic masculinity is an offense to all that is masculine?"

Why would you ask it, only to respond with that?

 

[Amused]

Words have meaning.

When the narrator states that “some” men are already doing the right thing, it is by default asserting that the majority has not.
I believe some of us are steering the topic towards criticizing a tone deaf and poorly executed ad, that is currently trending as one of the most disliked videos on YouTube and even SNL decided to parody, quite successfully, using the Kool Aid man (oh yeah!). There have been numerous business articles pointing out why Gillette failed where Nike succeeded.

Who is trying to steer the narrative exactly?

Why, it can't be you who addressed exactly 0% of my post or the subject matter therein whatsoever. At all. I mean none of it. Literally.

 

[Amused]

Sigh... most of you guys wouldn't know a fallacy if it hit you square in the face. That isn't whataboutism, nor is it fallacious. It's pretty much the opposite. Using the same argument while replacing the object on which the argument is being made for so that the entire thing goes against instead of with one's ideological position is an accepted way to test for consistency. And it's usually one of the best ways when dealing with individuals who aren't hopelessly cognitively dissonant to get them to altar their position, assuming they don't agree with both variants.

Topic: Toxic masculinity.

Poster in thead about a commercial discussing toxic masculinity says: But what about toxic femininity? What about that? Huh? Females be toxic, amirite?

It's the very fucking definition of whataboutism. FFS this is fucking stupid.

 

[snoopy7548]

Man, you guys are passionate about your razors.

 

[Amused]

Man, you guys are passionate about your razors.

It keeps us sharp.

 

[HurleyBird]

It's the very fucking definition of whataboutism. FFS this is fucking stupid.

No, it's not. Just having the words "what about" in a sentence does not make something whataboutism or tu quoque. Specifically, you need to accuse the other party of some transgression instead of addressing their argument or assertion, the implication being that they lack the moral right to criticise. It's the character of the person or entity, not the character of the argument. Testing an opponent on the consistency of their argument, to see if they'll accept it as valid even when it goes against their predisposition, is not whataboutism.

Whataboutism looks like:

"You bombed civilians in Crimea!"

"What about you, you're one to talk, you bombed civilians in the Middle East!"

Or to put it another way, had you responded to someone bemoaning a video accused of criticising men by just pointing out an ad accused of criticising women, or vice versa, that would be whataboutism.

 

[cytg111]

A lot of feelings were hurt by this ad. Its important to express your feels guys, its the way of the modern, sensitive, more feminine man... I am proud of you guys, true progressives .. let dem tears rip, youll feel better afterwards ...
Ah yes.. out of fs to give.. Later..

 

[pmv]

@pmv does. Its why I said so before.

Where did I use the word 'inherent'? That was your word, if I recall. If you are going to put that word in my mouth at least explain what you mean by it first.

Yet again you are speaking as if 'masculinity' is a timeless and unalterable entity. Rather than a malleable and fuzzily defined set of practices and values and cultural norms, which always exists in the context of a multiplicity of other norms, possibly as part of a system.

You denied you took such a view (that the referent here is a fixed quantity), yet you keep repeatedly returning to it.

 

[pmv]

Sigh... most of you guys wouldn't know a fallacy if it hit you square in the face. That isn't whataboutism, nor is it fallacious. It's pretty much the opposite. Using the same argument while replacing the object on which the argument is being made for so that the entire thing goes against instead of with one's ideological position is an accepted way to test for consistency. And it's usually one of the best ways when dealing with individuals who aren't hopelessly cognitively dissonant to get them to altar their position, assuming they don't agree with both variants.

Yeah, but I think it's some kind of fallacy all the same. The fallacy that says you can switch the object of a statement and that it doesn't effect the truth-value of that statement (on the assumptions that every statement relates to some kind of ideal theoretical world where all is symmetrical and nothing is complex...probably the same world where all extended bodies are rigid and all collisions are elastic). Don't know what that's called (we didn't do rhetoric at my school nor did we have a debating society) but it's one that comes up a lot in these sorts of discussions.

In fact, on reflection, I think it is very close to 'whataboutery' because it's a diversion into discussing the whole extended topic of how femininity relates to masculinity and how both might interact with all the other social and cultural forces in the word, and why things aren't simply symmetrical, in a way that would probably ensure one never gets back to the original topic.

 

[realibrad]

Where did I use the word 'inherent'? That was your word, if I recall. If you are going to put that word in my mouth at least explain what you mean by it first.

Yet again you are speaking as if 'masculinity' is a timeless and unalterable entity. Rather than a malleable and fuzzily defined set of practices and values and cultural norms, which always exists in the context of a multiplicity of other norms, possibly as part of a system.

You denied you took such a view (that the referent here is a fixed quantity), yet you keep repeatedly returning to it.

"Recently there's been a bit of attention paid to the bad side of what has been traditional masculinity, and values seem to have shifted rather."

Do you remember that?

 

[realibrad]

Yeah, but I think it's some kind of fallacy all the same. The fallacy that says you can switch the object of a statement and that it doesn't effect the truth-value of that statement (on the assumptions that every statement relates to some kind of ideal theoretical world where all is symmetrical and nothing is complex...probably the same world where all extended bodies are rigid and all collisions are elastic). Don't know what that's called (we didn't do rhetoric at my school nor did we have a debating society) but it's one that comes up a lot in these sorts of discussions.

In fact, on reflection, I think it is very close to 'whataboutery' because it's a diversion into discussing the whole extended topic of how femininity relates to masculinity and how both might interact with all the other social and cultural forces in the word, and why things aren't simply symmetrical, in a way that would probably ensure one never gets back to the original topic.

Its an attempt to test the underlying logic for consistency. If it breaks down, then there is a problem with the justification of the belief.

 

[HurleyBird]

Yeah, but I think it's some kind of fallacy all the same.

It isn't.

The fallacy that says you can switch the object of a statement and that it doesn't effect the truth-value of that statement (on the assumptions that every statement relates to some kind of ideal theoretical world where all is symmetrical and nothing is complex.

That wouldn't be a logical fallacy, but a factual error. You can make a counter argument by trying to show that one object meets some special case that the other does not (germane to the argument, or you're engaging in special pleading), or that there's a pertinent false equivalency. For example:

Person 1: "We shouldn't let group X immigrate here because they're violent!"

Person 2: "Your tune would be different if someone said group Y should be barred from immigration for that exact same reason!"

Person 1: "Look at these stats: group X has a violent felony rate twice the average, while group Y is half the average. The argument fits for group X but is irrelevant when applied to group Y."

In fact, on reflection, I think it is very close to 'whataboutery' because it's a diversion into discussing the whole extended topic of how femininity relates to masculinity and how both might interact with all the other social and cultural forces in the word, and why things aren't simply symmetrical, in a way that would probably ensure one never gets back to the original topic.

Not unless there's an actual red herring that isn't pertinent to the topic at hand. Drilling deeper into a subject is not an error of reason.

...

To quote Bo Bennet of logicallyfallacious, since he puts it more eloquently than I think I can:

If your intent it is get people to see that their statement/meme/belief is problematic, sometimes the best technique is to use the same statement/meme/belief on them with the subject changed to go against their ideological position. I learned this technique and the effectiveness of it, when a former theist once told me the moment they became an atheist (which is quite rare to have a "moment")... their go to argument was always "How can you be an atheist when you stroll through the forest on a spring day?" to which someone replied, "How can you be a theist when your stroll through the cancer ward at a children's hospital?" What happens is the person automatically and unconsciously starts to argue against your claim and realizes that their claim no longer makes sense either.

 

[Zorba]

Topic: Toxic masculinity.

Poster in thead about a commercial discussing toxic masculinity says: But what about toxic femininity? What about that? Huh? Females be toxic, amirite?

It's the very fucking definition of whataboutism. FFS this is fucking stupid.

Did anyone say that? At least the last few pages it has been "how would you feel if it was about women, instead of men?" or "what if it was about black men instead of all men?"

I came late to this thread, but I haven't seen anyone saying "yeah men are pigs, but so are women!" (although I do have some of the worst offenders on ignore)

I agree with you that "all lives matter" and "blue lives matter" is a simple diversion. But Black Lives Matter was never saying that only black lives mattered, they were saying black lives matter just as much as everyone else's.

Asking someone how they would feel about an ad that at a minimum is implying that most men wouldn't stop sexual assault, creepiness, or bullying how they would feel about it if it was targeted at black men is a thought experiment. I don't think a single supporter has actually done that thought experiment, though, and instead taken to personal attacks.

To be clear I am not saying there should be an ad targeting black men, but one could be made with the exact same tone using stereotypical black male issues. If I saw an ad with the exact same tone targeting black men I would never do business with that company again and I think it would be immediately labeled as racist.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Why, it can't be you who addressed exactly 0% of my post or the subject matter therein whatsoever. At all. I mean none of it. Literally.

Sure I did.

 

[Jhhnn]

Asking someone how they would feel about an ad that at a minimum is implying that most men wouldn't stop sexual assault, creepiness, or bullying how they would feel about it if it was targeted at black men is a thought experiment.

How you got that from the ad is beyond my comprehension. It's only possible when viewing it thru the gun slits in the bunker o' denial. That's not the implication at all.

 

[HurleyBird]

How you got that from the ad is beyond my comprehension. It's only possible when viewing it thru the gun slits in the bunker o' denial. That's not the implication at all.

Denial of what exactly?

 

[Zorba]

How you got that from the ad is beyond my comprehension. It's only possible when viewing it thru the gun slits in the bunker o' denial. That's not the implication at all.

Again, just complete personal attacks. How about actually attempting to have an honest discussion?

As it has been pointed out about 50 times and you et al continue to ignore, the ad says "some men are doing something" and it shows 30 men ignoring one boy beating up another boy and then finally 1 guy does something. This is implying most mean aren't doing something and wouldn't stop a kid from beating up another kid (seriously when has this ever been a thing?).

If you feel that "some" does not mean some number less than "most" or that showing 96.7% of men ignoring bullying doesn't imply "most" then make an actual argument for it.

How about this, answer the question, how would you feel about this ad if it was targeted at black men? Or would answering that question make you realize that your position is based on ideology as opposed to a logical assessment of this specific ad?

 

[Zorba]

Denial of what exactly?

Obviously this ad is a purity test. If you dislike it at all, it must mean that you are at a minimum a serial sexual harasser, although more likely a date rapist.

 

[Jhhnn]

As it has been pointed out about 50 times and you et al continue to ignore, the ad says "some men are doing something" and it shows 30 men ignoring one boy beating up another boy and then finally 1 guy does something

"Finally"? that sequence only lasts a few seconds. One guy moved a little faster than the rest. The ad encourages us to be that guy. That's it. That's all there is to it.