Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)
Mindless SJWs Again
Entry 1962, on 2019-01-16 at 19:32:22 (Rating 5, Politics)
Well it's now more than two weeks into the new year so it must be time for an anti-PC rant. I'm not talking about one of my infamous Microsoft Windows take-downs here, I mean PC in the context of political correctness. I'm sure anyone who reads this blog will be thinking "well, duh" about now, but I have been quite vocal in my criticism of Windows in the past and only became more engrossed in political correctness recently, so I felt I needed to clarify.
So, all that aside, what am I on about this time? Well, I've found some more politically correct nonsense, virtue signalling, and inconsistent criticism. So more of the same, but with an interesting twist which you might find interesting. The subject is the new Gillette ad, which many people will have come across by now. It seems to have generated a lot of commentary, both negative criticism and positive support. Needless to say, I am one of the critics. Here's why...
First, just in case you haven't seen it, what is this ad? It's an ad by the Gillette razor company which asks all men to fix the many problems with society which the ad holds them accountable for. This is particularly in the context of the metoo movement.
Here is the dialog on the ad: "Is this the best a man can get? Is it? We can't hide from it. It's been going on far too long. We can't laugh it off. 'What I actually think she's trying to say'. Making the same old excuses 'Boys will be boys'. But something finally changed 'Allegations regarding sexual assault and sexual harassment..." And there will be no going back. Because we... we believe in the best in men. 'Men need to hold other men accountable'. 'Smile sweetie. Come on'. To say the right thing. To act the right way. 'Bro, not cool. Not cool'. Some already are. In ways big... and small. 'Say I am strong'. 'I am strong'. But some is not enough. 'That's not how we treat each other, OK'. 'You OK?' Because the boys watching today... will be the men of tomorrow."
The dialog above is difficult to follow because this isn't a logical argument about anything, although to be fair, it makes a lot more sense while watching the video. But it is emotionally motivated propaganda, and that disjointed style, with half accusations, hidden insults, and unsupported statements, is fairly typical of what we expect from an ad. If we got an ad for Gillette's products using similar tricks I don't think many people would be impressed, so why are some people impressed by this garbage?
The ad was made by, Kim Gehrig, an Australian born director, currently based in London. Her bio claims she "brings a refreshing combination of honesty and wit to her work." Well I haven't bothered to watch her other material, but I didn't see any honesty or wit in this one. And, by the way, what gives a woman the right to tell men how to behave? Would the opposite be OK, or would that be "mansplaining"?
Clearly this is a politically motivated ad based on metoo movement dogma. As I have said in several past posts, I have no faith in the metoo movement now, despite the fact that it probably started out with good intentions. It is now simply a source of political power and quick and easy notoriety for those who participate in it.
So by making ads like this all that has been achieved is to further strengthen a corrupt political power (the metoo movement) and to further divide the rest of the population.
If a company, like Gillette, insists on diving into a political cesspit like this, I think they deserve to suffer the maximum damage possible. At the very least the person who gave the go-ahead for this ad should be fired, but who knows how else the company might suffer, because I think there are a lot more customers who would be insulted by this than those who might find it inspiring.
And maybe a significant backlash is a real possibility, because when I checked, the dislikes for the ad on YouTube outnumbered the likes by a factor of 3 (167K likes, 486K dislikes). And that is an interesting point, too, because who would have thought that most people would dare to vote against such a widely supported movement as metoo?
Well, here's a little hint for the SJWs: the metoo movement is not as widely supported as you think, but those who oppose it are being shut down in the mainstream media. This sounds like a conspiracy, I know, but sometimes conspiracies really exist. And this is not one in the form of a bunch of people sitting around a table smoking cigarettes and planning on world domination, it is more a subconscious bias in everything the MSM do.
I think the majority of people are thoroughly sick of the hugely privileged celebrities making up stories about how the patriarchy has harassed them. The fact is the complete opposite: the patriarchy (Hollywood, for example) is entirely responsible for their success, despite their lack of any real talent.
Considering that this is ostensibly an anti-bullying video, it is quite ironic how bullying the tone is. Actually, I think condescending and arrogant might be a better description, although those words are conflated with bullying so much by the other side, why shouldn't I do the same?
And here's the final, and most important, point: where is the evenness in treatment of this issue?
Let's assume the issue we want to address is bullying, harassment, and violence. If we looked at the groups responsible for these behaviours there is little doubt that men are more to blame than women. But what other groups are responsible for anti-social behaviour? Well in the US the vast majority of crimes are done by black people, and in New Zealand it is by Maori people. So why not have a campaign aimed at them by a major company those groups use?
And what about global terrorism? The vast majority is carried out my Islamic extremists. So why not have an ad from a company which they deal with a lot (say a Koran printing company, or a Halal food manufacturer) imploring them to moderate the behaviour of the extremists in their group?
So SJWs. Any takers? Not so keen on the idea now, are you?
And that is just one example of the incredible intellectual dishonesty of all of these politically correct people. It's only OK to stereotype groups when it is a dominant culture you are doing it to. According to them, all men are responsible for the crimes of a small minority, but not all black people are responsible for the far greater proportion who commit violent crimes, and they would never accuse Muslims of being responsible for the minority who commit terrorist acts, even though surveys indicate a significant proportion of Muslims support terrorism to some extent.
When I mention these points to SJWs I usually just get some generic response or just a "deer in the headlights" look, because it is totally obvious that they just haven't thought about this. They see an issue, an alarm goes off in their tiny brains, they see an opportunity to virtue signal, and they jump on board the good old PC express!
Well you guys carry on doing that, but I'll be calling you out every time you do it. Call it mansplaining if you want, but if telling the truth is mansplaining then I say bring on more mansplainers!
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
Contact: OJB, OJB@mac.com. Features: Blog, RSS Feeds, Podcasts, Feedback, Log. Modified: 03 Mar 2007. Hits: 30,213,734.