If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

I don't need Gillette to care about me personally (nor would I ever assume or ask a corporation to do so) I just need them to care about my money, and what it represents to pull that money. Not supporting companies for acting like cunts is a grand old tradition.

 

[Bloopy]

A very reasonable article about what the Gillette advert missed:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...4fa976-1a69-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html

edit: And another response ad -

 

[Dak]

I agree completely on the difference between pain and suffering, and that being alive means experiencing pain; but if we're talking about pain as grounds for establishing ethical behavior, I'm not sure I see your point.

I feel pain while running, for example, but that's pain I'm willingly accepting due to its benefits. I can't think of a case in which someone inflicting physical pain on my body is ethically acceptable unless we've established so beforehand. I don't think "spare the rod, spoil the child" is an ethically sound position, and firmly believe it's a sign of weakness and impatience on a parent/guardian's part.

So the point isn't that pain is inherently unethical, if we want to return to your language about people not inherently deserving respect. As I said, I don't think it's the case that people do inherently deserve respect. But if we're talking about the ethics of interpersonal relationships, then the knowledge that one is causing pain is, I think, a fine place to begin reflecting on whether one is acting ethically.

So to pose it in simpler language, I don't see at all why pain is a "terrible point of focus" when discussing ethical responsibility. Nothing about ethics is inherent, absolute, universal, etc. But we have to start somewhere, and I don't understand why pain isn't a good place to do so.

This is a lot to unpack so I can't really break it down without too much chopping.

Yes, there is positive pain with physical stress in terms of ability increase, the micro-fracture of bone and muscle as we exercise. There can be positive gain in other ways of increased tolerance, both physically and mentally. Ranger/seal/recon schools push the physical and mental side. Psych therapy pushes the mental side. Not sure what corporal punishment has to do with it.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is a lot to unpack so I can't really break it down without too much chopping.

Yes, there is positive pain with physical stress in terms of ability increase, the micro-fracture of bone and muscle as we exercise. There can be positive gain in other ways of increased tolerance, both physically and mentally. Ranger/seal/recon schools push the physical and mental side. Psych therapy pushes the mental side. Not sure what corporal punishment has to do with it.

I realize this is a quick response, but I'm having trouble understanding what the misunderstanding is.

I get that pain has positive consequences. All the examples you're referencing (ranger/seal/recon and therapy) have to do with persons who submit to some kind of agreement over an acceptable level of discomfort. Likewise, people who exercise probably enjoy the discomfort to the extent that it has positive outcomes.

But again, when it comes to interpersonal relations in which no prior agreement exists, why isn't acknowledgement of another's pain a reasonable premise from which to formulate an ethics of behavior?

 

[Dak]

I realize this is a quick response, but I'm having trouble understanding what the misunderstanding is.

I get that pain has positive consequences. All the examples you're referencing (ranger/seal/recon and therapy) have to do with persons who submit to some kind of agreement over an acceptable level of discomfort. Likewise, people who exercise probably enjoy the discomfort to the extent that it has positive outcomes.

But again, when it comes to interpersonal relations in which no prior agreement exists, why isn't acknowledgement of another's pain a reasonable premise from which to formulate an ethics of behavior?

People who inflict some pain, psychological or material, on others, may be repaid in kind. Is it unethical to repay pain with pain purely because it is pain? I don't even consider pain in the equation but that's how it looks from a "pain" perspective. Just a pain stalemate.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

FALSEHOOD FLIES, AND THE TRUTH COMES LIMPING AFTER IT

Moral outrage requires absolute belief in your own infallibility – if you accept that you are wrong about one thing, it risks bringing down your whole belief system. Identity politics, being part of a greater whole, and crusading across the internet in search of blasphemers is often all people have to make themselves feel important or worthwhile. They will cling to this sense of moral superiority at all costs, even that of the truth.

 

[Dak]

Of course. The media is at a fever pitch assaulting every "cishet white male" for not cowering. It's gonna be either a civil war or WWIII in the next 3 decades at this rate.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

these modern feminazis are doing nothing but breeding a generation of men that are going to hate women in the future. It's going to be bad for them one way or another.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

I just need them to care about my money, and what it represents to pull that money.

this is literally what a commercial's director does
the company picks a specific demographic and then they make a commercial that will get that specific demographic to purchase that product
the more pissed off you got about a commercial, the more money they made from some demographic that disagrees with your views

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

these modern feminazis

i personally know a woman who thinks men-hitting-women is wrong but actually thinks it's completely okay for a girl to beat-the-fucking-hell out of her boyfriend

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't need Gillette to care about me personally (nor would I ever assume or ask a corporation to do so) I just need them to care about my money, and what it represents to pull that money. Not supporting companies for acting like cunts is a grand old tradition.

They do care about money. The ad wasn't some liberal marketing consultant's attempt to subtly inject virtue signaling into a major corporation's ad campaign. The ad itself was based on marketing research that suggests it would ultimately earn Gillette more money in the long run. The whole thing is financially driven.

https://morningconsult.com/form/gillette-commercial-survey/

Downward trends notwithstanding, Gillette is banking on this solidifying their name over the long run and earning them a solid purchasing base. They might experience some negative backlash right away, but stats suggest that it's minimal.

Not supporting them is fine, that's your prerogative. But don't try to pretend the ad wasn't about money. It was all about money. And I guarantee they have research to back up the decision to run the ad.

 

[rms]

Can't get the logic behind that ad taking consumers away from Harry's or Dollar Shave club. "I really hated overpriced razors until I saw that they think men should be more socially responsible"

 

[Einherjar86]

Whatever, it's their research. All they're looking for are stats about whether people say they would switch brands. Apparently a lot of users said they would, and very few said they wouldn't. Worst happens is there are no significant changes. If anything shifts, research indicates it would do so in their favor.

 

[rms]

Maybe you should read more bullshit into 2200 person razor survey. And that business research is some intelligent worthwhile thing. Budweiser already abandoned their "real men don't drink craft beer " crap

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe you should read more bullshit into 2200 person razor survey. And that business research is some intelligent worthwhile thing. Budweiser already abandoned their "real men don't drink craft beer " crap

If R&A wasn't intelligent and worthwhile, companies wouldn't do it. And if they hired bullshit artists who didn't know what they're doing and send sales down the toilet, then they'll fire those bullshit artists and hire ones who're good at what they do.

I'm curious how you think major corporations arrive at decisions to make/sell any product without research. It's almost as though you think a few execs chatting in a room somewhere just go "Yeah, I think people would like that!"

But then, I suppose that is easier to imagine than actually trying to conceive how companies conduct market research...

 

[Dak]

I'm curious as to the research sample. I've seen mostly women positively commenting about it, and dudes who look like they don't grow much facial hair. What if it was really designed to sell more Venus razors? Well played Gillette.

 

[CiG]

this is literally what a commercial's director does
the company picks a specific demographic and then they make a commercial that will get that specific demographic to purchase that product
the more pissed off you got about a commercial, the more money they made from some demographic that disagrees with your views

Somehow I highly doubt it was a good business move. Likely they will distance themselves from such rhetoric at some point in the near future.

They do care about money. The ad wasn't some liberal marketing consultant's attempt to subtly inject virtue signaling into a major corporation's ad campaign. The ad itself was based on marketing research that suggests it would ultimately earn Gillette more money in the long run. The whole thing is financially driven.

https://morningconsult.com/form/gillette-commercial-survey/

Downward trends notwithstanding, Gillette is banking on this solidifying their name over the long run and earning them a solid purchasing base. They might experience some negative backlash right away, but stats suggest that it's minimal.

Not supporting them is fine, that's your prerogative. But don't try to pretend the ad wasn't about money. It was all about money. And I guarantee they have research to back up the decision to run the ad.

I never once said or suggested that they don't care about money, I was responding to you saying Gillette don't care about us personally, which was an idiotic thing to say because nobody thinks they care about us, or at least I would never think that. I said I only need them to care about my money as a direct rebuttal to your implication of them caring being my expectation.

I don't buy that this was a good financial move. Not that I truly believe the average person is willing to go without a product they like to stand by a principle, if they did Nike wouldn't still be in business.

 

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

I never once said or suggested that they don't care about money, I was responding to you saying Gillette don't care about us personally, which was an idiotic thing to say because nobody thinks they care about us, or at least I would never think that. I said I only need them to care about my money as a direct rebuttal to your implication of them caring being my expectation.

The vibe I got from most people's comments was that they made a decision in the interests of social justice or some bullshit like that. They're not interested in social justice or virtue signaling or whatever beyond its value as a marketing strategy. Sorry if I misread what people were saying.

 

[CiG]

Virtue-signalling in and of itself has nothing to do with any kind of real justice. Virtue-signalling is when a conservative talks about family values and then goes and has sex with a male hooker in a motel, or when left-wingers buy Nike in support of Kaepernick in the pursuit of social justice. Corporations are and always will be the kings of virtue-signalling, money is of paramount importance but public image is penultimate.

TL;DR all virtue-signalling is a kind of market strategy.