RiotAct Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 So far this year, there have been countless instances of companies changing the overall direction of certain products (as with some police shows on TV), or at the very least their names or logos, in response to the unrest around the country. Here’s one I saw this morning: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/17/business/aunt-jemima-logo-change/index.html What do you think overall? Good idea / bad idea? Will this go a long way in solving the systematic racism that is so prevalent in all parts of American society? 1
Westside Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 It's white guilt. It's really simple. If they don't cancel shows that might trigger a liberal, they might be called a racist. Which is the worst thing anybody can call you. The liberals are Woke. 2 1
snafu Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 Civic orthodox purity testing. Everyone not woke enough is either a heathen or a heretic. Companies that don’t show a woke face are scared to be boycotted or firebombed. Nobody is free until everyone is free — except nobody knows when that will be or what it would look like. 2 1
FireChans Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 (edited) Bro this started looooooong before 2020. The culture war was lost 8 years ago. Edited June 17, 2020 by FireChans
Tiberius Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 33 minutes ago, RiotAct said: So far this year, there have been countless instances of companies changing the overall direction of certain products (as with some police shows on TV), or at the very least their names or logos, in response to the unrest around the country. Here’s one I saw this morning: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/17/business/aunt-jemima-logo-change/index.html What do you think overall? Good idea / bad idea? Will this go a long way in solving the systematic racism that is so prevalent in all parts of American society? It’s called capitalism and marketing. 1
123719bwiqrb Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 Companies just want to maximize profits, so I would not expect any change that a corporation makes to signal that they are woke will have a significant impact on how people treat one another. Just ensures they get to still make a profit slinging sugary syrup or whatever their product is. The cancelling of reality based police shows is a little weird. I mean I get it, cops in 2020 are out, totally square man. But I am sure most fictional shows will continue to have stupid amounts of violence and gun play. And most definitely use the latest trend for bad guys (are we back to RUSSIANS and off the Middle Easterners on TV, right?). If violence & murders are bad, then let's stop glorifying that behavior on the boob tube every damn day. Same with some of the violent rap artists. If we want to improve our society, then let's start elevating the peaceful intelligent side of things (Will Smith is good role model for this, as is older Snoop Dog). Cancelling a fictional lady on a syrup bottle is great, but once you come back from their commercial on TV you continue to see humans getting their brains blown out. Makes no sense to me. Now I feel all old and get off my lawn-ish today. 2
FireChans Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 40 minutes ago, Tiberius said: It’s called capitalism and marketing. It is and it isn’t. Social media has amplified the invisible hand to the sharpened nail. The vocal minority dictates things well outside of the market. Was Aunt Jemima syrup really losing money because of the logo? I doubt it. It’s no different than the election. A vocal chunk of this country made it sound like Trump was going to get 5% of the vote. But that didn’t reflect reality
Tiberius Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 8 minutes ago, FireChans said: It is and it isn’t. Social media has amplified the invisible hand to the sharpened nail. The vocal minority dictates things well outside of the market. Was Aunt Jemima syrup really losing money because of the logo? I doubt it. It’s no different than the election. A vocal chunk of this country made it sound like Trump was going to get 5% of the vote. But that didn’t reflect reality They are a business that wants to earn a profit so they rebranded. Thats about it 1
3rdnlng Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, RiotAct said: So far this year, there have been countless instances of companies changing the overall direction of certain products (as with some police shows on TV), or at the very least their names or logos, in response to the unrest around the country. Here’s one I saw this morning: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/17/business/aunt-jemima-logo-change/index.html What do you think overall? Good idea / bad idea? Will this go a long way in solving the systematic racism that is so prevalent in all parts of American society? I'm not so sure the new marketing works for me: 2 7
Cinga Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 Anyone else see the irony as we remove Confederate statues because of racism, and then remove images of Aunt Jemima and the Indian girl from Land O Lakes butter? Wouldn't that be racism too? 1
Reality Check Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Cinga said: Anyone else see the irony as we remove Confederate statues because of racism, and then remove images of Aunt Jemima and the Indian girl from Land O Lakes butter? Wouldn't that be racism too? These moves serve propaganda efforts. They don't address the ineffectiveness of the education system in the inner cities. They don't address the hard drugs forced into those areas from around the world. They don't address the lack of jobs or the lack of black business owners. They don't address the fact the second amendment has been taken away from law abiding citizens in these areas who must try to raise and protect their families in an often violent environment on the streets. As long as everyone not living there gets that warm fuzzy feeling of self righteousness with symbolic gestures, little will ever change. 2 1 1
Dante Posted June 17, 2020 Posted June 17, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, RiotAct said: So far this year, there have been countless instances of companies changing the overall direction of certain products (as with some police shows on TV), or at the very least their names or logos, in response to the unrest around the country. Here’s one I saw this morning: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/06/17/business/aunt-jemima-logo-change/index.html What do you think overall? Good idea / bad idea? Will this go a long way in solving the systematic racism that is so prevalent in all parts of American society? If your all in on a abstract concept/conspiracy theory like the bolded, it's pointless. Edited June 17, 2020 by Dante
B-Man Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 How to Fight the Woke...and Win by Damian Max Original Article The Woke are everywhere. They're in our schools, in government, and at our places of work. More importantly, the Woke are on the move. They are coming for you, for me, and for anyone else who does not subscribe to their quasi-religion. Don't fool yourself — you are not safe. The Woke are at war with anyone who opposes them, and it does not matter if you just want to be left alone. You will have to bend the knee or fight. Here are a dozen strategies that you can start using right now 1
Koko78 Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 34 minutes ago, B-Man said: WHO? They're still pissed about how they tanked their careers by alienating their core audience... 4 1
BillsFanNC Posted June 18, 2020 Posted June 18, 2020 (edited) Three Five years ago an article entitled "The Coddling Of The American Mind" was published in the Atlantic. It described the rise of cancel culture on campuses, how it came to be and what to potentially do about it. At the time, conventional wisdom dictated that students who believe that words are violence and who seek to cancel uncomfortable ideas different from their own would be in for a rude awakening upon entering the real world. Unfortunately, it's now clear that the media, corporations, politicians and pop culture are all too eager to endorse this mindset now that these young people have entered "adult" society en masse. They described this cancel culture mindset as vindictive protectiveness. Welcome to 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ A few excerpts: Quote Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. Quote The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. That’s partly right, although there are important differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the 1980s and ’90s. That movement sought to restrict speech (specifically hate speech aimed at marginalized groups), but it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. The current movement is largely about emotional well-being. More than the last, it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psychological harm. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse. Quote The dangers that these trends pose to scholarship and to the quality of American universities are significant; we could write a whole essay detailing them. But in this essay we focus on a different question: What are the effects of this new protectiveness on the students themselves? Does it benefit the people it is supposed to help? What exactly are students learning when they spend four years or more in a community that polices unintentional slights, places warning labels on works of classic literature, and in many other ways conveys the sense that words can be forms of violence that require strict control by campus authorities, who are expected to act as both protectors and prosecutors? Quote However, there is a deeper problem with trigger warnings. According to the most-basic tenets of psychology, the very idea of helping people with anxiety disorders avoid the things they fear is misguided. A person who is trapped in an elevator during a power outage may panic and think she is going to die. That frightening experience can change neural connections in her amygdala, leading to an elevator phobia. If you want this woman to retain her fear for life, you should help her avoid elevators. Quote Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation if student expectations of safety are carried forward. And they are bad for American democracy, which is already paralyzed by worsening partisanship. When the ideas, values, and speech of the other side are seen not just as wrong but as willfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed to make politics a positive-sum game . Quote The biggest single step in the right direction does not involve faculty or university administrators, but rather the federal government, which should release universities from their fear of unreasonable investigation and sanctions by the Department of Education. Congress should define peer-on-peer harassment according to the Supreme Court’s definition in the 1999 case Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. The Davis standard holds that a single comment or thoughtless remark by a student does not equal harassment; harassment requires a pattern of objectively offensive behavior by one student that interferes with another student’s access to education. Establishing the Davis standard would help eliminate universities’ impulse to police their students’ speech so carefully . Edited June 18, 2020 by BillsFanNC 1 1 6
Recommended Posts