Gillette’s wonderfully woke new commercial

[Jhhnn]

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.

Bigly projection.

 

[HurleyBird]

You ignored the second half of his question, Jhhnn. If it's innocuous as you state, would you feel the same way about a substantially similar depiction of black men? If the answer is yes, then you're consistent.

 

[Zorba]

"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.

Might want to re-watch that. Yeah it is short because the ad covers a lot in 90 seconds, but only one guy comes over and that is a continuation of the "Boys will be boys" scene, implying the rest didn't care. Also the narrator says at the same time "but some is not enough." Again implying that the majority of men are either acting badly or are ignoring it.

 

[Zorba]

Bigly projection.

You are the one that said it, so maybe you are the one projecting. I haven't accused anyone of being denial.

If that isn't what you were implying then what am I supposedly of being in Denial of?

This is DSF levels of "who me?" And you've done it multiple times in this thread.

 

[Lanyap]

This Gillette ad doesn’t affect me because I use Harry’s.

 

[pmv]

It isn't.



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."



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:

Why does it matter if it's technically a 'fallacy' according to your definition? I think you are getting hung up on pedantry.

What it is is a hoary old argument which comes up again-and-again. When the deeper dig has been done many times before people get bored with answering the same point every single time (it's just a variation of "why isn't there a white history month?").

It's changing the subject to a point which has been answered many times over, so, yes, that could be called 'whataboutery' (the word is not defined by God or some Internatonal Fallacy Standards Organisation, it was coined as part of someone's observation about discourse in Northern Ireland - though I've discovered from this forum that Americans like to pretend they invented it! People are free to use it in other ways)

 

[pmv]

"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?

Yup. And where is the word 'inherent' in that sentence?

You realise you've just proven that you were lying (or at least mistaken) when you claimed I said it was 'inherent', right?

Edit - you also dropped all the qualifiers ('what has been" and "traditional") and shifted to speaking of some monolithic and timeless un-qualified 'masculinity'.

 

[realibrad]

Yup. And where is the word 'inherent' in that sentence?

You realise you've just proven that you were lying (or at least mistaken) when you claimed I said it was 'inherent', right?

Edit - you also dropped all the qualifiers ('what has been" and "traditional") and shifted to speaking of some monolithic and timeless un-qualified 'masculinity'.

Are you really going to quibble over inherent and, traditionally?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Are you really going to quibble over inherent and, traditionally?

Words have meanings and get put in specific places for specific reasons. What you did completely changes how pmv's post is interpreted.

If you need a little help, I recommend www.dictionary.com.

Quit being stupid.

 

[pmv]

Are you really going to quibble over inherent and, traditionally?

Inherent implies essential to the concept. That's kind-of-important. That's clearly central to the meaning you were trying to put on it in referring to it. So not a quibble.

 

[realibrad]

Words have meanings and get put in specific places for specific reasons. What you did completely changes how pmv's post is interpreted.

If you need a little help, I recommend www.dictionary.com.

Quit being stupid.

It can easily be extrapolated from the conversation we had.

"Recently there's been a bit of attention paid to the bad side of what has been traditional masculinity"

 

[realibrad]

Inherent implies essential to the concept. That's kind-of-important. That's clearly central to the meaning you were trying to put on it in referring to it. So not a quibble.

No, not essential to the concept, just something that has been part of it and cannot be removed. When I say removed, I mean that you cannot take it out of history because it was there.

I'm giving up on my original attempt here, because, you and I actually agree here. I was hoping that you would engage people and defend it and that I could watch. I'm too polarizing in most topics and you are not, so I wanted to see how it went.

That appears to be unlikely at this point.

Masculinity historically is driven by society but also by biology. The biology side drives men to dominate. This is why men traditionally have been the more competitive gender. Its biology to control and own. This has manifested in things that we see throughout history that we have been pushing back on.

 

[Zorba]

Why does it matter if it's technically a 'fallacy' according to your definition? I think you are getting hung up on pedantry.

What it is is a hoary old argument which comes up again-and-again. When the deeper dig has been done many times before people get bored with answering the same point every single time (it's just a variation of "why isn't there a white history month?").

It's changing the subject to a point which has been answered many times over, so, yes, that could be called 'whataboutery' (the word is not defined by God or some Internatonal Fallacy Standards Organisation, it was coined as part of someone's observation about discourse in Northern Ireland - though I've discovered from this forum that Americans like to pretend they invented it! People are free to use it in other ways)

You can ask the question why isn't there a white history month and be consistent when you determine there doesn't need to be one. It isn't because black or women history is more important it's that history as taught is strongly skewed toward white males.

That is pretty different than showing a bunch of stereotypical negative male behaviors then saying "some" men don't do them. I don't think you can be consistent in saying that is okay to do about men but no other subgrouping of people. It's at least not nearly the same as "why are there no white affinity groups at work?"

There is a reason the reaction to this ad is so much different than the Nike ad. The Nike ad said to said for something and go fight to make things better. This one, though, showed a bunch of negative actions and then said "men most of you are okay with all this, but you shouldn't be." Which I agree men shouldn't be or put up with assholes, but there are good ways and bad ways of saying that.

Just like you can have a pro-black-fatherhood ad that is very positive, or you can have a pro-black-fatherhood ad that is extremely racist.

 

[Jhhnn]

You ignored the second half of his question, Jhhnn. If it's innocuous as you state, would you feel the same way about a substantially similar depiction of black men? If the answer is yes, then you're consistent.

That's so lame. What color is the first guy in the ad?

 

[Zorba]

That's so lame. What color is the first guy in the ad?

What if the stereotypes were negative black male stereotypes, instead of all males?

No one has said this was an attack on white men. Quit playing dumb, you keep dodging the question.

 

[realibrad]

What if the stereotypes were negative black male stereotypes, instead of all males?

No one has said this was an attack on white men. Quit playing dumb, you keep dodging the question.

Its not him dodging, he just has trouble understanding. I know this just sounds like a petty insult, but, I really don't think he is trying to avoid it. I think he truly does not understand.

 

[Vic]

To sum up this thread, right wingers outraged by leftist identity politics are triggered by a TV commercial because they think it slights their male identity.

 

[snoopy7548]

To sum up this thread, right wingers outraged by leftist identity politics are triggered by a TV commercial because they think it slights their male identity.

Yep. Like I said about 80 pages ago... I was only semi-joking, but it's true; a real man wouldn't let an advertisement control his emotions.

 

[Starbuck1975]

To sum up the thread, left wingers perform mental gymnastics to rationalize an ad that they would otherwise condemn if it depicted just about any other demographic in a similar manner.

 

[snoopy7548]

To sum up the thread, *makes a lot of fart noises*.

 

[realibrad]

Who in this thread that is against the ad is outraged? I see people that dislike the ad, but, nobody that has been outraged.

 

[Vic]

To sum up the thread, left wingers perform mental gymnastics to rationalize an ad that they would otherwise condemn if it depicted just about any other demographic in a similar manner.

Nope.

As a white male, I just love this bullshit where I'm supposedly bigoted against white males. Why don't you just get it over with and call me a n****r lover?

 

[realibrad]

Nope.

As a white male, I just love this bullshit where I'm supposedly bigoted against white males. Why don't you just get it over with and call me a n****r lover?

Are you saying that because you are a white male you cannot be bigoted against white males?

 

[Vic]

Are you saying that because you are a white male you cannot be bigoted against white males?

No, I'm saying you're an idiot.

 

[realibrad]

No, I'm saying you're an idiot.

So yes.

Go have a drink and relax.