Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by ghostmaker650, Feb 3, 2014.
The only thing I find offensive about this ad is Coca-Cola.
You say you live in Metro Detroit? The one time I was in Dearborn I barely heard anything outside of Arabic while I was in public.
Alan West was also confused and perplexed:
As Steven Colbert pointed out, how can we possibly expect a Floridian who served in Iraq to know what Spanish and Arabic sound like?
I think Coca-Cola is giving many people far too much credit.
Now this is the Coke ad as it should have been:
Link to video.
For the purposes of this thread, I think the reactions of people to the pseudo-xenophobic comments count. I'm not sure it's necessary to go beyond this.
I didn't say that it has value. I said that it's a "healthy sign". Is it useful? Yes, and precisely because it's "a momentum augmentation to social/legal change".
The morality of public sentiment has to be judged on a case-by-case basis, obviously. In this particular case, I find it hard to imagine how it is not morally right. Your objection seems to be that it's a convenient sentiment that does little to 'prove' those people's true convictions - they haven't walked their talk, so to speak.
But I'm not interested in judging the individual merit of the people who expressed this sentiment; it's easy to go down that path and to disparage these people in order to bolster your own sense of being more enlightened or whatever. The question that I'm interested in is whether this expression of public sentiment is a good thing. And it seems to be. You can bring up slacktivism to argue that it's not, but, pray tell, how would the likely alternative of apathy be better? You may think that a more nuanced reaction would be superior, but let's be realistic here - not everyone is a 'moderate' or a 'liberal' who is fully rational when it comes to thinking about social and moral issues. And we have to work with what we have. This seems to be the only productive option. If you refuse to countenance the weight of public sentiment, then the likelihood of you being able to accomplish change is slim to none. So how would you be able to make any difference yourself?
Forget earlier I think the following is more fun: I think it's intrinsically bad when public sentiment is letting itself by driven by a commercial ploy by coke. That you're letting coke drive it's brand in your mind as a part of your morality. It's literally seeking to further commodify your morality by marrying itself to your identity by staging an us-vs-them word volley.
Here's the good news: no one on my news feed, including oh dp many immediate-to-respond by reputation progressive counter-reactors so I think people just aren't falling for it as much. It's like, people will get mad at Blurred Lines for personal or personally held social beliefs and that's driving media coverage commerce in the same way but a company pissing off a group, even if they're paying homage to side of the more moral foundation, to get people mad that group no matter how salient the criticism, just to sell Coke, is too much for even the ones who loooove the argument.
Buzzfeed and Upworthy made it so obvious that progressivism was seeing a huge surge of re-commodification getting in its own way. So I'm optimistic in this case that people won't feel the need to make it their focus and promote coke in the process like we're doing in this thread. So at least we know that's a barometer to get less prime time and more twitter links to private blog op ed responses to other small sights.
I don't think I was disparaging people aelf, its the 21st century, I'm not all medieval on the morality of masturbation. My original statement, which Hygro has expanded more sensibly than I would have, was merely that this particular advertisement was somewhat predictable in the hullabaloo that followed. I would also guess that this particular hullabaloo isn't very useful, because it was a marketing plan by Coke, which means it was also probably a pretty safe bet on the numbers. Cheerios with a mixed race family? Not very risky. Not terribly groundbreaking public discourse to arise out of attempting to group-Twitter-shame people with racial hangups. This Coke ad will little girls singing American songs in Spanish? Even less risky. Even less valuable hullabaloo. Now, put something actually controversial up there in a Superbowl advertisement, and I might have to change my tune from this somewhat weary feeling I'm getting from watching effective marketing. Even if I happen to like the message of this particular marketing.
I think you need to be careful here. The Coke commercial and the public sentiment I'm referring to are not inherently linked. People are reacting the other people who expressed non-progressive sentiments in reaction to the commercial. The commercial is what sparked off this exchange, but it's also almost incidental to the debate that it brings attention to.
Yup, that's what I always say to these liberals. The Spanish had no right to take the land (eventually went to Mexico).
It wasn't even the Native American's land either. They came over from Asia. They are immigrants too. Everyone outside of Africa is an immigrant. No one person has ownership of the land. We should all share it.
That could mean almost anything, from noble to terrible.
yeah it sounds kind of socialist.
But I do have to support immigration since I'm an immigrant myself. All I hope for is they integrate into American society as my family did. And yes, speaking English is part of that. I no longer speak German of my ancestors. Loyalty to America is important to me. Otherwise I fear a similar fate as the Romans. (who's barbarians fighting in their military were not loyal to the Roam empire). Romans had plenty of immigration issues (from barbarian migration), and they probably did not handle it well.
My overall point is lefties are hypocrites for saying white man can't immigrate to this country, but Mexicans can. I have every right to be here as they do. It proves their overall agenda is white hatred.
Uh oh. WHer attack in 5...4...3...
Let's be clear, except for your judgment of "almost incidental", this is what I am saying. The thing is that it's not incidental. The reaction to various bigots is reflecting and advancing public sentiment but its done so by repeatedly referencing what brought about the debate, the coke ad.
The sentiment against the backlash reinforces the anti-antiist identity, but now refreshed by coke. Parasites on our psyche, man.
It's like Pavlov's bell.
Disgustipated, that is an incorrect description of the history of the Roman Empire. It is based on an outdated reading of the sources, and a deep misunderstanding of humans and cultural identity. It is still supported by some historians in modern times, but that is increasingly because it is used by them and others for political purposes. The historians who push this narrative tend to be the kind of people who are supportive of limits on immigration and/or efforts to limit cultural diversity in the modern world, and they use the Rome example in precisely the same way you do: as a supportive plank for their argument. Or they're simply bad historians using bad arguments with no malicious intent, but the point still stands.
Especially given we have a far more recent historical period with mass population migration to analyze and draw conclusions from.
How dare you suggest me-ism is responsible for this!
I remember somebody (from Europe) telling me a story about first moving the USA, landing in Texas, and trying to get directions from somebody who speaks English.
When I first moved to Atlanta, I stopped to get directions to the Sears store. It was on Ponce de Leon Avenue, which turned out to be a major street. But the guy who gave me directions spoke the name in a deep Southern accept and transformed it into Ponts Dee Leon, the last word pronounced like the name of the individual. I drove by it 3 or 4 times before finally figuring out what he meant.
It later turned out that many locals pronounced it the very same way. If you pronounced it in Spanish they wouldn't know what you meant.
General rule with place names: even if the place is named after somewhere else, the locals own the pronunciation of their landmarks/cities/streets/whatnot. Even if it's confusing, or "Kay-row" Illinois gives me the hives a little bit.
I'm not sure I understand your argument. This same debate could have been sparked off by an ad put up by a government agency or caused by a publicised incident. In that case, the issue of commodification of public sentiment wouldn't even arise. That's why I said that the ad itself and who put it up is incidental.
If you're arguing that the resulting publicity only benefits Coke and therefore subverts any progressivist merit the debate could have had, then I simply don't agree. If you only want to take up issues when it's brought up in a kosher manner then we probably won't really get anywhere. And I even like Žižek.
Besides, again, I'm not saying that the Coke ad and the ensuing debate is good for spearheading a progressive cause, merely that it's a healthy sign. It means there's an awareness and understanding among the public that national culture is not monolithic. Whether or not that is brought to light under the banner of Coke doesn't change that fact that it's a good sign.
And even if its not the actual pronunciation of the people who named the place, for that matter. (ie, French names in the north-east and mid-west, Spanish names in the south-west, native names everywhere)
(But America,s not unique in this. And amazingly Americans tend to be much better at saying "Montréal" (closer to Moe-ray-al than Mount-ree-al, though there is a sound I can't quite figure how to approximate at the end syllable. It's not t, though. That T is silent) and "Québec" (Closer to Kay-beck more than Kwee-beck) right than the average English Canadian)
Separate names with a comma.