M: First off, thank you most sincerely for this post. I feel like I am talking to a real person here, one who is attempting to be honest with himself, and with me.
OK, I do not think my main narrative was ever to make you admit you were triggered. My main point has always been that the put down reactions to the Oposter's Opost were were not based much on anything that he said but on how he has been pigeonholed as a result of his posting history, and to the extent that having myself, in reading his post as a single item, could not fine anything much in it that could account for that negative reaction, and moreover, that I could share in the concern he actually expressed. What I saw then was people being needlessly and absurdly triggered themselves and turning around and calling him the one who was triggered.
I realize that we build a body of history with people we interact with that create assumption about why they act as they do, and while I appreciate and can do that myself, I find it also robotic and soul killing. It is exactly why we get triggered and are trapped by past experience, unwilling to engage in dialog or alter fixed perceptions. I think I am seeing visible signs of how the insanity on the right is causing the left to become unhinged. I don't think that is a good thing. It triggers my own sort of concern.
But when I read his OP I saw nothing there to suggest he is some incel monster or aggrieved male chauvinist, whether he is or is not. I saw a moral questioning of the appropriateness of having our moral values set by corporations. My response to that was that I can both see the appropriateness of the question and support the ad at the same time.
V: It is odd that the cognitive dissonance of this ad caused so much mental discomfort. The controversy is not about the effectiveness of the ad and the business they will lose or gain, but "what about the poor men??" I (adult male) wasn't offended watching this ad. (actually It looks like a preview for the latest tedious Steve Carrell movie) Nor was my ultraconservative in laws whom have seen this ad. In fact "real" conservatives should praise a message of morality and proper behavior. There is only a small segment of people "triggered" by this ad. We know who they are. The hubbub is from men who claim it's an attack on all men. But there's nothing in the ad that implies all men are like this; that's completely in the eyes of these viewers. If that Gillette ad made you pissed off, you’re why they made it.
M: I have no problem with this. I just don't think it applies to me or the content of the OPost.
V: My interpertation of the ad... hey, don't be an asshole, or one of those assholes that excuses assholish behavior by other men. Be a good person and set a good example for the next generation of men. And, the reaction from the offenderati seems to be, "hey, they just called me an asshole!" hey If the shoe fits, wear it, but if it doesn't, you're not an asshole and they didn't call you one. It's like when someone parked their car over two (or more!) spots and they were called out as the asshole they are. But, "Hey, I park my car. They just called me an asshole!" Because, unless you park diagonally over two spots, you're not the asshole they are talking about.
M: I have no problem with this. It accurately represents how some people behave in my opinion too. But I had no problem with the ad, only questions about the implications of corporations signaling morality, what, long term the consequences will be. What is it all about. That was the issue I also saw the Oposter raising in his Opost.
V: The ad is already a success, it has people
talking about it's message and what it means. Did Gillette alienate a huge piece of their customer base? I doubt it, but It's all over social media and the incels and the red pillers are losing their shit over this. If nothing else, the Gillette ad has done a great job of getting people to talk about the Gillette ad. Politically motivated ads are nothing new. The few in here "outraged" that corporations are in the morality business rings hollow. Most of the negative reaction is with the message.
M: Again, I have no problem with this. I was never on about the ad, only that what I thought was a valid moral concern about corporate sourced morality and the implications for society long run. The fact that there may be a lunatic fringe out there somewhere who see the ad as an attack on their sick moral beliefs does not justify stiffuling intelectual inquirey into the best ways to transmit moral principles to the general society. I think that is a very important issue to think about. And I believe it is important enough to consider that I not concern myself unduely about any triggered criticism I will face from the left in doing so. I thank you for defending your position here again for that reason. My point is that I don't think I was the droid you were looking for.
Facebook
Twitter