Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Obviously, a trip to a beach should involve no more preparation than a check of the weather forecast, the packing of a good picnic and an appropriate level of sun protection.
retweeting shit about feminists getting "salt in their vaginas" and all sorts.
is exactly what I expect from those twats you see wandwring around carrying big sippy cups full of protein shake. The country's fucked.
triggers my gag reflex
After exercise, your body really needs protein to repair what you've done to it. Your muscles cannot rebukld new fibres without it. So unless you're able to sit down to some significant chicken/steak and eggs straight after a work out (and actually- the cholesterol downside of this means you shouldn't) then you're better off having a protein supplement. By all means slag off the people who take steroids or bulkers, but protein shakes aren't actually particularly laughable.
The tube, the office, basically anywhere other than the gym, to prove to absolutely everyone that they've bought into the 'lifestyle'.
I get the "science" - just doesn't appeal. Each to their own etc.
You NEED to drink some synthetic powder shake after exercising in order to look a certain way? Oh, ok.
It's about muscle health. Most people don't have the time or money to eat steak after every run / weights workout/ whatever. If you are mindful of your body's health and reparation you will want the convenience of getting protein into you quickly and cheaply. I don't personally work out hard enough these days to merit it, but when I used to train hard, it was invaluable.
I guess my point is that the look they're going for is probably pretty unnatural if it can only be achieved with protein shakes and machines in gyms. It doesn't really make any sense to me
that the body is sitting around waiting for protein to enter the stomach, so that it can be then immediately used to repair muscles.
Most people's issues with protein shakes is people waving them around basically saying "look at me, I work out. And I drink SHAKES".
they know it deep-down. One guy I know shakes it for ages right in the middle of the office.
the boss seems like a terrible prick tweeting people about their 'insecurities' and what not.
...a Change.org petition saying these Protein World adverts are "aiming to make [individuals] feel physically inferior to the unrealistic body image of the bronzed model, in order to sell their product".
They're complaining about people trying to sell things through advertising? What?
but you're going to have an uphill struggle against pretty much all fashion etc advertising ever.
Most (all?) real fashion advertising uses models who are fairly unrealistic in shape to sell a product that you can buy and wear. What I mean is that even though I don't look like James Bond if I buy whatever watch he's plugging, I still get the watch.
For this they are essentially selling you The Model not the items The Model wears, which is the subtle point, because selling you The Model involves getting you to commit self-torture, which is a bit dodgy, really.
When I see David Gandy on a poster, I feel shitty that I don't look much like David Gandy. Whatever they're flogging, it's all aspirational, you're-not good-enough-until-this-product-fixes-you bullshit. The Protein World one is pretty blatant but I don't think I would have given it a second thought without this blowing up on Twitter.
I saw it a while back and thought it was one of the most horrific pieces of body-shaming I'd ever seen. Was pretty glad to see people defacing them.
I have no idea who David Gandy is.
and said that I thought he was more attractive before he got all silly I the gym.
I find david Gandy a bit plain looking.
I am not the gym.
he definitely needs to get himself a better pair of swim shorts. Those just make me think of 70s Y-fronts.
can't help but feel this kinda thing just makes smug/self-congratulatory cunts on twitter feel better about themselves without actually having any sort of actual impact on the problem
rather than just being completely ignored...
confirms increase in sales = HUGE SUCCESS!
If it came down on the campaign and said it was unacceptable that would be a start.
The sales aren't the point, people discussing something we've all agreed is prevalent is. I think that's something achieved.
Can confirm she is of this ilk.
you got here first to speak sense :)
the majority of people can be any shape or size they want if they do certain things.
with some overpriced powdery bullshit.
Don't conflate the two concepts.
Have a huge body of peer-tested science to back up that assumption?
Also you were the person implicitly suggesting meal replacements were one of the options, IMO.
(though I take your point about protein shakes as a supplementary post-gym thing, even if I wouldn't fancy using them)
Absolutely loads of advertising is based on the notion that you’re doing life wrong, and that you need Product X order to do life right. It’s a shitty sentiment, but I don't see it becoming any less pervasive.
but I am maybe not at my 100% fittest right now. I need at least 24 hours notice before I can do justice to a string bikini (ask me tomorrow.)
I don't really understand what the fuss is about re the advert- it's stupid and irresponsible, but HELLO, ADVERTISING????
is explicit (ie you need to attain THIS physique or you're not welcome somewhere) rather than the implicit look-how-nice-our-models-are kind of thing.
back to your desk sunshine
We have the ASA for a reason. Do you really believe that anything goes for advertising? It's definitely on the edge of reasonable.
and I'd imagine the campaign has been running so long that we are a little numb to it.
However, I'd say it's closer into the 'okay' bracket than this is but I wouldn't be sad to see Special K brutally taken down from its bullshit perch. I guess it would depend on whether this sort of advertising is more likely to be a trigger for someone who battles eating disorders or not.
someone else google it please, I'm in the kitchen
OTHER EXAMPLES OF SHAMEFUL ADVERTISING ARE AVAILABLE.
They do allegedly use plus size now (by which I think they mean size 10-12 women as opposed to size 6-8 usual model sized women).
have you ever tried to east special k? it's basically little slivers of cardboard.
Have a box on my desk right now. (Those ladies in red had quite the impact on me as a younger man)
It's a bit like big rice crispies, from what I recall.
One says you can aspire to be this shape, the other says that you would be right to be ashamed if you went out and you weren't it.
The implication of the latter is very present in the former
but we're discussing this on the back of my saying if the Protein World stuff isn't breaking standards then it is very very close to it and that would be the point, really. As in Special-K being 'almost as bed' doesn't prevent Protein World from having crossed the line.
The idea of aiming for a "beach body" has been an advertising staple for years.
But it's hardly new and it's surprising that this particular example is being targeted as much as it is.
Plenty of things that we have made society change its opinion on were staples for years, even in advertising. Women being the ones doing the dishes/washing clothes is also an advertising staple. Should we just shrug and say, "Oh it's always been that way".
Advertising is particularly conservative and backward thinking so it should be brought to heel by force.
I'm just saying it seems odd to me that this particular ad has become a flashpoint when I can't really distinguish it from plenty of other adverts.
When Boots launches its next Get Ready for Summer! campaign we can return to this and see how that goes down.
posters of this ad are all over the underground.
I'm inclined to say that if people feel body shamed by this advert, then it's body-shaming, and if people who have been body shamed feel that this advert crosses a line or is worse than others, we should probably listen to them.
It's very easy, if you're male, or you've never been made to feel shame about being overweight, to not see the differences in tone and attitude in an advert, in the same way that your privileged position can inure you to structural racism or sexism and the microagressions/transgressions that take place.
but I take your point. Privilege, checked.
- Meal replacement shakes are a bit of an extreme way of dieting, aren't they? (Old Barry Bethel from the Slimfast adverts was pretty heavily obese wasn't he? And the shakes were more for his health than anything)
- Yeah, point taken re: advertising in general - I guess this one is just more blatant than most others. (Cf. how Wonga gets the majority of the stick when other lenders and payday loan companies are equally predatory)
- Sounds like they've been pretty defensive in Twitter, thus stoking the flames.
aka 99% of people shouldn't go to the beach because they 'aren't ready'
also that there's only one shape of body that looks healthy/attractive.
feel pretty rotten about their bodies. The sources of this will vary. This advert has made a load of women feel similarly rotten about their bodies, it seems. And they're kicking off about it because they don't want to feel that way, and they don't want this advert to make them feel that way. They're allowed to do that.
`The fuss around this advert` is pretty obvious. It might lack logical coherence but, emotive topics do that.
I find the whole thing so incredibly incredibly sad :(
Just not sure why it's this particular example that's blown up. The deliberate attempts to make women (and men to a much lesser extent) feel dreadful about their bodies is an advertising/fashion industry staple and has been for decades. I'm glad to see a backlash against it, I hope it's applied consistently though.
and because we always see a natural build in our society to a point where people kick off about a particular type of thing. Probably the 'rise of social media' TM helps, whereby one image of a defaced ad becomes big enough combined with the product owner being able to respond. And respond really crassly.
Like I said, I just hope that if we've collectively decided that it's reached breaking point with this shit we actually keep it up and try and stamp it out rather than it just being yet another load of self-congratulatory social-media bullshit that is dropped for the next thing almost immediately.
I think it's more the fact that the advertising creative lent itself to being a) responded to and b) lampooned that gave this one shareable traction.
Not sure why you feel the need to question it to be honest, if you agree with the motives of the folk who've been riled.
Anyway my point was in response to PO directly saying she didn't understand what the fuss was about when she evidently does - she just doesn't empathise or agree with it.
I'm pretty open about the fact that I've had horrendous body image/eating issues in the past, and perhaps I ought to be more sympathetic as a result, but if anything my decade of therapy has made me quite unemotive about stuff like this. So I apologise upfront for any kind of arrogant detachment I'm giving out here. Of course you can be beautiful and healthy and not have a body that looks like ribs may have had to be removed to achieve that waist, but I don't think that *per se* it is wrong to let people be aspirational about how they might look.
I also do ponder the effect of fashion/ trends. I was looking at something in the press earlier about how women's eyebrows have changed over the decades- from marlene dietrich's pencilled on arched thin lines, to Katie price's HD brows and then Cara D's bushy caterpillars- 'beauty' is so malleable as a concept and we. as consumers, lap it up. And bodies are similar- I remember back when I danced, our coach was always showing us a particular exercise to make our bottoms flatter, higher and less plump. Now everybody wants a massive sticky-out bum. I don't really know where I'm going with this other than turning into creaky, but I do think that it's more important to work on self esteem and confidence that allows you to laugh rather than cry at a silly ad campaign.
Chinese foot-binding an especially ludicrous example. Titillation pictures from several hundred years ago used to feature women with massive thighs, I’ve noted. Massive thighs are pretty out of vogue now. And many women with them don’t seem to be able to shift them. And they feel that, as a result, someone is constantly telling them they’re ugly. As a man I’m largely shielded from it, but I made peace with how ghastly I look many years ago. It's easier for us.
I don't think it's wrong for aspirational images to be projected at all. But they other side of the coin is that often these images a) are manipulated by computers and b) often felt as genuinely unachievable by a large section of their audience. Feeling ugly, however irrationally, is a horrible thing. Cuts to the core of peoples' senses of self and security. It's such a rotten thing to manipulate too. But there we are.
Fortunately I have no plans to be on a beach for the foreseeable future though.
ready to be beached.
(it's not the fact that it's idealising a certain shape, but excluding all those that aren't), but the reaction of the company's social media people has been horrific and nasty, rallying all the worst examples of MRA/GamerGate wahmbulance types to their cause.
Doesn't really do much to dispel the stereotype of the bro-science guy, does it?
THAT guy, jeez
but shouldn't it be 'Is your body beach-ready?' or something like that. In its current form it's nonsense
Best shape of my life.
Or had a major problem with it really. I already know I'm going to be judged at the beach if I hang out in a bikini or w/ever and that's the real problem, not an advert that just reinforces the message.
Oh good, sand; oh good, sea; now I'm covered in sand, there are shitty children running around everywhere screaming, seagulls looming, and it's really hard to get comfortable. I'd rather go to a museum.
(I'm not too keen on beaches, but I'm outnumbered 3-1 in our family by those who love the beach. I'll tolerate it until about an hour after lunch, at which point I've built more than my fair share of sandcastles / dams / sand racing cars)
and scream into the roaring black abyss.
I do like lobbing stones in the sea (or any body of water really) though so I'll take a pebble beach.
football is excruciatingly painful don't understand why people do it
but prefer them slightly to museums. I love a good pool.
but ads like this are such bollocks.
A mate of mine used to work for Men's Health Magazine and would tell me all the tricks they'd use for photo shoots like that. Using a black and white photo is a pretty common one as you can really boost the contrast on the models abdomen so it looks more sculpted.
Also, they'll often really dehydrate themselves the night before a shoot and eat dry Weetabix for breakfast, as that really helps with muscle definition, but also makes your skin really pasty (and your breath stink). So again, use a black and white photo.
She doesn't look starved tee bee aitch, tee bee eff.
something been deleted?
carry on, everyone
this has been a well-subscribed but pretty tame debate thus far.
Fucking tedious boring shite nothing ever changes
same things is happening with blokes too now. like, some people enjoy working out and want to be thin/nuff, others (inc. me) don't particularly care. neither of these groups of people are real-er than the other.
I am naturally quite slim but have to exercise now and again if I want to stay as slim as I prefer to be. My sister, on the other hand, eats whatever she wants, has never been inside a gym in her life and has a model figure. We were measuring her up for her wedding dress the other week and she has a 23 inch waist. But big boobies and lovely hips/ bottom. GRRR. The abuse she gets from jealous people is horrible though. You would never tell a fat person to stop eating, so why is it seen as ok to tell a slim person to 'eat something'. Horrid.
Many people do, to a much greater, and more vitriolic extent than they do with slim people.
and have double standards. #newsflash
I guess that means it's pretty serious with the guy, or....?
who already don't feel great, feel worse, then ________
why would you care as long as you're selling more of your product?
which is why probs they often seem confused about why people have a problem with their adverts
it's all in me
(complete fucking prick)
Breitbart, Dellingpole and Milo on your side, you really should start to worry that you're the bad guys.
and not a minor character in Mad Men.
What does that mean (other than he's a bit of a prick)? I wonder if irate social media campaigns are starting to lose their currency, bit-by-bit. Maybe, when these types of controversies happen in the future, we’ll see a shift away from “sorry if any offense was caused” towards “get a fucking life, you losers”.
I'm just wondering if it might.
I've pre-ordered the rack of ribs.
advertised as a beauty product rather than for healthy living. Really shouldn't be difficult to figure out why people take specific exception to this.
but at least it doesnt outright tell you that you're ugly and need to buy their products.
the thing where people counter an ad like that with body positive stuff on social media showing a diverse range of bodies... it's obviously not original or thought provoking or whatever, but it reinforces the ideas it wants to present. I think it demonstrably has had an effect on the way people think about their bodies. And it's always good having stuff get attention that fucks off body fascists and reminds people they can eat or be whatever the fuck they want, and it's the people who want to regulate that who are absolute sad acts
except I am not tanned....and I have no mistache
She’s living with a fitness instructor. He drinks that yellow stuff in tins. He’s an idiot!
I make my protein shakes in glass mason jars because they dont keep the horrible protein smell after.
COME AT ME BROS
(oh, this was a superbly dumb and offensive campaign, and the fact that the company cant see that is very sad)
and then returned to it about a month later
Nearly threw up on the kitchen floor when I took the lid off
Is that it's BRIGHT YELLOW! It stands out like a sore thumb.
Secondly, there's something very detached about the model's appearance. She's almost looking down her nose at everyone in the photo. This is going to sound a bit ridiculous, but if she had a smile on her face, it would be less intimidating and we'd have less of a reaction.
Do I think it's bodyshaming? Not really. The image is relevant to the product - using that product will supposedly assist you in having a more toned body. So why not show a woman with a toned, athletic body?
Extending the definition of body-shaming to people with athletic bodies and having a culture where only "normal" bodies (as defined by who exactly... DiSers?) are on show is ridiculous.
ROSCOE: Are YOU beach body ready?
(MARLON says nothing)
ROSCOE: Of course you understand, my old compadre Marlon the Marlon, that I refer to the fact that at our local beach their stands a mighty boss.
(MARLON looks up for a moment and then returns to his magazine, 'What A Week!' (the monthly magazine written by, and aimed at, enthusiasts and fans of weekly magazines))
ROSCOE: Yeah, you have to grind -- going down the park to fight against stray cats in order to level up and master all the skills appropriate to fight the boss at the beach himself... ... ... ALTERNATE REALITY GARY SINISE! The most EVIL Gary Sinise in the multiverse
(MARLON gets up and takes his magazine into another room, shutting the door behind him)
In response to this comment of yours I will paste below- I didn't want the reply to get lost amongst the many here, and I'm on my phone where it is a little difficult to reply (very difficult).
Beauty is a social construct. Always has been.
I don't think it's wrong for aspirational images to be projected at all. But they other side of the coin is that often these images a) are manipulated by computers and b) often felt as genuinely unachievable by a large section of their audience. Feeling ugly, however irrationally, is a horrible thing. Cuts to the core of peoples' senses of self and security. It's such a rotten thing to manipulate too. But there we are.
--------------------------- (text not mine.)
There are parts of this comment I either agree with or think are fine, notably the latter half.
However your wording, in a consciously sensitive post, would seem a little off in the earlier half of your comment. Notably the section on 'massive thighs' and whether someone should 'shift them'.
I would recommend you research WHR- Waist To Hip Ratio, which is a great marker for health and fertility. The ratio -the smallest measure of waist compared to the largest point of the bum- is commonly used as a subconscious cue of, as I said, beauty and fertility through all cultures.
I would also recommend researching the benefits of lower body fat (eg, hips, bum) vs upper body fat- they are used in different ways by the body, and lower body fat is the healthier of the two.
Finally, I would research the benefits of having thicker arms and legs vs thinner ones. If I remember correctly, thicker limbs (ie at the thigh or upper arm) can lead to both lessened heart disease, and a longer lifespan. (it may have been heart attacks rather than heart disease, as I said, I'm on my phone.)
Thanks so much! I hope this is helpful for you, or anyone reading who is unaware.
Apologies for the clumsy wording - my point was meant to be that having `larger` thighs seemingly used to be a beauty standard, whereas today it seems to be the opposite. Could be wrong. All I know is that I know several girls who bemoan the size of their thighs, who try to actively slim them down, and find they cannot. Now... why is this? Especially given what you point out in your post.
I wasn't saying anyone should shift anything - was more pointing out a seemingly common predisposition for women to be self-conscious about their thighs (for instance - all that `thigh gap` contro). Apologies again for the poor wording here.
The reason for the dialogue from your female friends about their thighs is what I would call 'Normalised Pro-Ana'.
Back when I was on Livejournal and other communities in 2004-5, all these things- thinspiration, thin thighs, bones, focus on particular body parts, meal replacements, fruit diets, liquid diets, self-taken underwear or swimsuit shots were ALL EXCLUSIVELY seen on Pro-Ana websites and forums.
The fact that this has become normalised and seeped into health and beauty is precisely why this ad attracted controversy, and why you aren't sure what to do with your female friends attitudes about their bodies.
Pro-Ana becoming normal is unacceptable, but it has happened- the only thing you can do is try and be aware when you witness behaviours that tally with it. Focusing on one particular body part is most definitely one of them.
I used to work for a mental health organisation which commissioned a lot of research into pro-Anorexia (which I think is the same thing as `pro-Ana` but could be wrong) websites and it was rather eyeopening. I'd not really considered the wider impact of it, assuming the behaviours were very niche and restricted to those who participated in these forums (mostly on the internet). But... it seems not.
Thinking about it, it's no surprise. Adverts/media like this are essentially exploiting the same `trigger points`.
social media has changed a lot in the last five years or so, and it's probably arguable that fitspo and 'fitness goals' across things such as tumblr, instagram, twitter and pinterest seem weirdly more accepted/a more mainstream version of the livejournal communities of ten years ago, which were often locked communities, where girls exchanged tips.
also how 'wellbeing gurus' are having a moment and being featured in vogue, trying to sell you coldpressed juice cleanses, raw almond milk and spiralisers.
basically a julienne peeler that you hand-crank http://rk.wsimgs.com/wsimgs/rk/images/dp/wcm/201470/0273/img71c.jpg
It wasn't actually the content of the ad that offended me, it was the size of the ad itself. They take over nearly half the length of the tube platform! I also find digital campaigns on the underground intrusive, and wonder if they distract the tube drivers or be some sort of health and safety breach. I do seem to have a bit of time on my hands at the moment.
the "Hello boys" ones.
(we're talking the mid-90s. Formative years for teenage ccb)
I'm sure they got blamed for a car crash or two.
oh how it royally fucks & beats us day upon day upon day
to anyone in denial, this is an advertisement encouraging women to use meal replacements (read the words on it) in place of actual food.
i know people who do this already (meal replacements 6 days a week in the month lead up to a holiday) and it's so sad, obviously not the sort of behaviour that should be encouraged, but it's definitely going to sell products
feel a bit shan for the model they used but not the company because obviously via twitter they've revealed themselves to be absolute arseholes
I knew a guy who did a whole diet plan around that sort of thing, but it was one where you had to get your GP on board and they monitored you. And the people providing the supplements also required you attended meetings where they helped you to change your dietary habits.
Dunno, it worked for him. I guess he didn't really care too much about food. He was a computer guy, all day at a desk, and he said the dietary change was great too, making him realise a lot of why he was overweight was that he would eat while bored, and eat doughnuts or the like. Instead he changed to drinking water or going for a quick walk to get his head straight.
he was overweight because he was eating doughnuts when he was bored?
who did a meal replacement thing that actually worked really well for her. some people don't have strong willpower- and a lot of eating is emotional and it's easier to abdicate all responsibility and just drink a can of shake instead of any food for 6 months can seem like a much better option than having to weigh out food and make decisions about what to eat. I cant remember the name of the diet, it began with a V. She has literally halved in size and her diabetes is under control. i appreciate this might be the only genuine success story! And she may put it all back on now she's back on food, but so far so good.
have breakfast, have a healthy enough lunch, drink a thing instead of having dinner. Job done.
the ones that don't consist of a cocktail of whey, appetite suppressants and laxatives and aren't advertised in such a way. some of them even come with full disclosure as to how often to have them and what else to supplement your lifestyle with, and have backing from medical professionals.
i know plenty of girls hospitalised after abusing meal replacements and "weight loss protein supplements" - iirc there was a supplement endorsed by jodie marsh that gave someone serious problems.
(in a remarkably terrible thread)
This is a good, in-depth piece on exactly what these products are and what they're being advertised as.
The benefits of whey protein as supporting muscle development and growth are pretty much out of the window as relates to this; though a lot of people are still getting confused here. That model does not have a physique that suggests use of protein supplements to support muscle growth (and yes I feel like a right creep for subjecting her body to this much scrutiny, whoever she is). As you say GB, it's being advertised as meal replacement (there are even supposedly appetite-suppressants in there!), not a supplement.
And to get into slightly more debatable ground: the woman in the ad picture combined with the specifics of the product and the message are what makes this bit of advertising so nasty. Thin (I'd say not unhealthily thin, but still thin) model advertising a meal replacement product? The use of meal replacement diets isn't always even recommended for those who are obese; the idea that a person would use one to slim down to the size of the woman in the ad is fucking risible.
Dove advertises their product on the basis that it keeps your skin looking nice, and that ‘real beauty’ is equated with nice skin. They’re in no real position to take the moral high ground.
Imagine if ‘completion-shaming’ became a thing (i.e. people with bad skin getting angry about depictions of people with good skin). Dove would be fucked.
is it a joke i'm not getting because it looks like bullying from where I'm standing (am actually sitting btw but whatevs). apologies if I am just being thick and not getting the joke.
Better than yours, tbf.
I'd normally trust your judgement but I've found this person to be on of the lesser wallies on here. Quite an interesting poster by all accounts.
I've always wanted to be called a 'lesser wally'.
this person is contributing just as much as everyone else in this thread. Granted the discussion has got a bit tedious but compared to how these things normally play out on here it's a pretty decent thread.
even for a thread this full of awful posts, "skinny shaming? what's next, bad skin shaming?" is risible. and it's a long term thing.
You seem to wait around for him/her to post and pile on with not even thinly veiled abuse. it's nasty and it's uncomfortable to witness.
aren't you usually one of the cheerleaders for people saying whatever they like on here?
and that includes the person that you are attacking, who you are effectively trying to chase off the boards. Cool your jets a bit. It's not exemplary behaviour for a mod to display. I'm sorry to be so harsh, I consider you to be a decent friend to me, and I hope I've been a good friend to you, but with that comes the fact I'll tell you when I think you're being a pranny. And vice versa, which to be fair I have taken on the chin in the past (mostly).
A new low, Theo.
I don't see a thread full of awful posts but different people with different views discussing something.
I honestly can't remember many of our previous interactions, so I'm a bit baffled as to where this grudge is coming from.
they're totting up
if you were a young black man and fidel were a baltimore cop, then you might be in for an uncomfortable ride
(sorry thats offensively flippant.....but I am trying to make a (hugely hyperbolically overthetoply exagerated) point about how bias people can be over 'reading' other peoples actions/threads, dependant upon what we superficially think of the other person.......
and the exageration is necessary because the mundane can turn into the horribly real under some circumstances)
I like it when people call me that, It happens fairly infrequently, but regularly
A young man had his neck broken by police and died a week later. I'm not sure it's really in the best taste to use it for weak forum jokez.
on youtube....non of which are helpful, all of which involve hate, which I try to steer back to admitting the reality rather than polarised confrontion...........so i am probably a bit jaded....
I have not seen any comments regarding Freddie Grays tragic death as being helpful and in good taste.
His death arose from a small matter of 'making eye contact' but because of the filters in the us cops mind, this is interpreted as something negative, despite the seeming mundane meh ness of the action.....I thought I explained the relevance of the over the topness, as to demonstrate how, in some circumstances, predjudice not based upon the actual actions can lead from 'meh' to tragedy.......(in this case it was a post not an action and there is little possibility of it leading to tradgedy......but my other point in using that sick joke, was because in other circumstances, judging a person(s actions and speech) by what they superficially looks like rather than their actual actions and their speech, leads to mistakes.
I actually doubt that the US cops intend to kill in most of the controversial cases, but it is mistinterpretation of mundane actions, due to some filter in the mind.......I am trying to attack those filters, AND also the superficial nature of seeing that we are encouraged to all adopt.
have a fucking word with yourself
what on earth is the matter with that point.....its getting to the root of things.....suppose we did live in a world where body size did not matter.....but perfect skin did, and those without it, for whatever reason, were made to feel hideous because of the marketing of 'real beauty'......its the same root.
Mother Shabubu is perfectly valid in adding that Dove are not fine in all regards, as part of their marketing is that we should all want beautiful perfect skin.......fine, we might all want that ...to a degree.....but marketing and pictures and visuals that re-enforce that, do exactly that.....they re-enforce, they exagerate.
Marketing, is to create need/want....or to increase need/want.
If the marketing is to create need/want based on what 'everyone should find attractive' (hey no make up needed here...just perfect skin) and the product involved does not actually create perfect skin for every case of inperfect skin, then that is a cruel marketing campaign which can depress without perfect skin with low self esteem, slightly more.
Why is that a crap observation to make.......I think that i've had a disagreement with MS before, but just because you disagree with something someone said once, does not mean that you dismiss everything that person says without relevance to that which they say (actually I think I apologised to MS in the end, for trying to be humourous by jumping on the insulting of MS badwagon (entirely randomly....just to be random)
So perhaps I feel I have to make up for that..... not that MS needs me to fight his/her battles.....just that It is wrong for you to dismiss someones comment because you dont like them, you should refer intstaed to the relevance of their comment.
and reckons shops should actively prohibit people with bad skin from shopping in them then maybe you'd have a point.
While there are elements that are similar, it's reductive to leap from weight fascism to skin fascism. Society is actually massively forgiving over bad skin, probably because pretty much EVERYONE has had to endure acne at some point and there's not a great deal you can do to avoid spots, etc.
or being called names at school?
That's not really what we're talking about though. We're talking about a culture that says not only that you should be a certain size/weight, but that if you aren't that size or weight you are failing and also attributes things such as laziness, gluttony, etc. to such people.
While Oxy 10 and the like certainly pray on teenagers with acne, if a 30 year old walked around town with bad skin, the general reaction would be one of, "poor bastard". It would be accepted that they were not responsible for this condition by the vast majority of people.
Honestly Creaky, this is some dreadful right-wing bullshit you're stirring up here. I'm pretty disappointed in you.
Perhaps I am just a flippant cunt.......... (actually I am that)
Well OK I will retract what I said
MotherShabubu......you are a cunt......(There Theo are you and your freind Fidel happy now?)
more to the point zxcvbnm, are you happy now?
(PS MotherShabubu....I was only joking....not against you, but against your enemies of Fidel and Theo)
I could imagine you taking me to task on many things....but i dont see anything right wing...i mean im really after an explanation here
this isn't much better than the BUT WHAT ABOUT THIN SHAMING upthread
was used, idk
and if you're saying using the word imagine means it's pointless then the post itself is pointless...which means you must consider fidel's own response to it as apt?
but what I got from the post was that, whilst putting themselves on a higher moral level, dove are also a company that create a standard of beauty that people are supposed to attain. Obvs that standard is far less emotionally charged and translates to far less IRL persecution of people who fall short of it, but they're still setting a definition of what 'real beauty' is. I guess it depends on whether it's purely the fat-shaming element of the advert you find bad, or if there's something inherently a bit off about a company telling people what is and isn't beauty. IDK it's a bit off a half-baked point but at the same time I don't think it deserved to be jumped on wuite so savagely y'know.
See my reply down here to MS's clarification http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4462557#r8560541
the objection is to a hypothetical being used to make a stupid point, not that the hypothetical doesn't actually pertain
Can you please come back as mod and then ban fidel? I think we've identified one reason why we managed a 150-plus-reply thread without beeves.
I guess the "don't cry" remark struck a rather unpleasant chord with me. My problem, not yours, though.
I'm no more a fan of ol' Mother-"People pretend to be offended by things to annoy my inner-Breitbart"-Shabubu than fidel is, tbh.
to engage in a reasonable discussion with him/her.
I had my fill of people demanding lengthy, polite responses to terrible shite in limbo's day, tbh.
I'm sure you can.
try to have some dignity here. you're acting like a lover scorned
I've never once coveted the position of a DiS mod.
I really want to be one ;)
I have no idea why people act like I was great when they continually gave me shit 100% of the time for everything I did. And of course for all the other things I didn't spot and delete immediately even though they hadn't actually alerted me to said awful trolling.
You were a fantastic mod and if people gave you shit, it was either off the board or a light teasing. I don't think many people would argue with the fact that you have real integrity.
i think they're giving him shit for being a cunt
But I have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Is this because I defended Moker when he was being mildly Little England-y 18 months ago?
Yes partly, except I don't really remember the particular point mokes was making, although he's not really very Little England, really.
You tend to express a view I would put in the camp of pro-"Libertarian", which tends to lead to a reactionary view of the world (in everyone who expresses that view, not in you particularly).
But at least you have the cujones to tell me what it is I’m supposed to have done. I’m not an economic libertarian, that’s for sure. I believe in free healthcare, the welfare state, etc. Ron Paul and Ayn Rand and Ron Swanson would probably hate me. I’m probably a civil libertarian though, along the lines of, I dunno, Noam Chomsky or Shami Chakrabarti or Voltaire (minus the racism).
Personally, I’d like to hear as many opinions as possible, and to learn to find common ground rather than focus on ideological differences, which probably makes me more of a hippy throwback than a libertarian. Hope that clears things up for you.
I think things have changed and people who don't move have ended up more right than they thought they were. Or something.
We end up in a thread like this where people are arguing as if this advert isn't worth giving a shit about. I think the very nature of progressive politics is about rejecting anything that smacks of accepting the status quo.
Which is why I say that people who think of themselves a pro-libertarian also tend to end up being reactionary, because it seems like any attempt to change how someone (usually white, usually male, usually rich, but that's kind of a side effect of current culture) is currently doing things is first seen as an attack on their liberty to do things as they have always done.
So you end up with this sort of thread that's full of weird responses espousing views of "that's just advertising" or "but these other things are just as bad" or "I am more worried that objecting to something makes you seem like Rik out of the Young Ones", possibly with a *shrug* on the end.
Over the last five years or so I have come to realise how in danger of being that reactionary I was becoming, because the first 20 years of my life I was very progressive, but if you don't reassess what progressive politics mean you end up on the wrong side of them.
Bottom line, I can neither side with UnicornPorn or fidel really. I haven't noticed him following you from thread to thread and giving you a hard time, but he's not exactly done himself favours here with some of his responses... :-/
"We end up in a thread like this where people are arguing as if this advert isn't worth giving a shit about."
I suspect that some of peoples responses have been tempered with a sense of world weariness but surely the fact that this thread has gone for 200+ posts suggests that people care about the issues brought up by this campaign.
"that's just advertising" or "but these other things are just as bad" /= condoning it
'"that's just advertising" or "but these other things are just as bad" /= condoning it' What is it, then? Because it seems like they are the answers given to people who object to the advert. The only grey area of "I don't care/have an opinion" is where you don't comment at all. Otherwise you *are* implicitly saying it's okay.
To be clear: I'm only suggesting people might want to actually say, "Yeah it's bad and I'd be happier if it stopped," I'm not asking people to sign an online petition or take up placards or something (I certainly won't). So if you're going to argue that it's just the way the world works you've already abdicated responsibility for thinking it should improve, IMO.
And world-weariness may be a cause of that but that doesn't make it okay.
I think political ideologies (mainly on the left, but also on the right) have become more fragmented and cliquey since the financial crash. It’s not enough to hate The Bush Doctrine and Maggie Thatcher anymore. Lots of rather speculative theory has made the move from academia into mainstream culture, and I think lots of people who identify themselves as left wing haven’t always found it terribly convincing.
I remember my flatmate introducing me to the term fat-shaming in early-2008. It's certainly increased in popularity and credibility ever since. The same thing could easily happen with some other subject. Bad skin is pretty much an accident of birth, after all.
Fat people have a certain amount of visibility in the media nowadays (if only in those comedies where loud Americans with great teeth fall over a lot), whereas people with bad skin don’t (The Singing Detective? That one D&D guy in Freaks And Geeks?). Maybe, in a decade’s time, we’ll be bemoaning that fact. Stranger things have happened.
I think it’s legitimate for people not to want to be fat (I was fat as a teenager, and I don’t want to be again). If we’re going to say that advertisers aren’t free to exploit that desire, just as they exploit most other desires, then we’ve got a big job on our hands if we’re going to apply that attitude consistently.
I view the prospect of change with a certain amount of humility. Partly because the world makes little sense to me, and I haven’t seen much evidence that it makes sense to anyone else. Also, it’s a bit of a Sorcerer’s Apprentice-style exercise in futility to try and stop people from expressing things that might hurt people’s feelings. And I’m not particularly motivated to enforce my own moral code onto others, as it’s kind of arrogant and arbitrary.
I have no problem with people trying to be a certain weight if they want. There's a huge huge pressure from all aspects of society to do that and most of it we can't really hope to affect for a generation (and there's also the question of whether science will come in with stuff that will make all food less fatty, etc, thus changing the entire environment, but that's another thing).
My only objection is to a terrible form of advertising pushing a very dubious product in a form that doesn't seem to suggest there is any possible health danger, while attempting to make people feel unworthy of normal behaviour if they don't have it.
I still feel the whole bad skin thing is still a red herring for the reasons I've raised above, about how we are inherently sympathetic to people in that situation, how we presume they did not ask or cause what is happening to them.
I defended him about 18 months ago, when he said something mildly Little-England-y (it wasn’t even that retrogressive; more Jack Dee than Jeremy Clarkson). Then Moker took my words and put them (slightly out-of-context) on his profile page, and kept repeating them in every argument. Then, if I remember rightly, catstro took me to task for those words, because he thought I was saying that true selflessness doesn’t exist or something.
Well I just remember you saying that people choose to be offended about things, which is an attitude that leads to assuming things are probably okay, IMO, rather than thinking that maybe shit is fucked up and people are justifiably upset about something I haven't really considered.
But, to be clear, I was saying that SOME people like to get offended by things. I think we’re probably all aware of people like that; the type of person who can’t look at a stamp without telling you that they’re a republican.
I wasn’t saying that everyone who gets upset about something is feigning it.
Marketing creates/exagerates the importance of things that are emotional......we can all, when we are not full of self beans, beat ourselves up over shortcomings, that we may have....sometimes ones that we have no control over.
People are not actually banned from shops because they are overweight, no more that people with bad skin. (admitedly a git mayor in some italian town has said something about only beautiful people on his beach)
If one is full of self confidence then it can mean that the whole world can call you names and reject you and yoyu can be alright, but the thing is that none of us can be like that the whole time and many cannot be like that any of the time........I as not suggesting that the skin marketing is something that would get 'society to be predjudice against people with bad skin' I was suggesting that it can be something extra for someone to be depressed about (more).
As it is life is unfair......not just in the beauty stakes....so extra added influence of ,marketing for corporate gain is something that it is legitimate to question.....I dont know why you are racting like this......i didnt feel moved enough to post till I saw MS getting slagged needlessly again, so I've come in with an over the top robust defence of MS's point.
Whats so difficult to understand about that?
MotherShabubu was making a swipe at Dove's marketing's response by saying that Dove were just as bad in a world that doesn't exist.
"People are not actually banned from shops because they are overweight, no more that people with bad skin."
is true, but overweight people do have to deal with a daily bucket of shit that people with bad skin don't. this is just... true?
(HOPEFULLY POLITE ENOUGH for those who want us all to be nice (except to fatties obvi))
body shape is currently one of the top reasons people get made to feel bad about themselves.....but just because it is the worst does not mean that any superficial exagerated method of criticising or deprecating people is not also something that might be a problem.......in the past times skin colour has been used to deprecate people, sometimes still is, in a different way and with more serious effect its true, but aspects of predjudice in that way have also included the mundane and superficial. There are many facets to many problems, but by not focussing on understanding the whole predjudice or gossiping thing then we are not addressing the root of why we behave in discriminatory ways sometimes, and how we can best mitigate about exagerating humans horrible tendancy to 'rate' people, in an unsolicited manner, by perhaps being careful with marketing
as anyone here, and I don't really understand what you're on about
I am very highly strung, and my political views on things are quite 'special' and involved, and probably not on the same page as other people.
I think people on dis are good though.......a word of advice to you all........don't get involved in youtube discussions
Human beings being prejudiced, judgemental, generally awful to each other all stems from the same basic thing and by highlighting specific, individual manifestations of that thing rather than trying to understand and confront the central thing itself the thing will never change? Creaky?
DISCLAIMER: There is very obviously a hierarchy of things people are made to feel awful about and body size/shape is right up there at the top of the list. I think there's an interesting point buried somewhere in Creaky's post about the central human tendency to be shits to each other though.
completely not-relevant to the point he's trying to make? or at least the point he initially engaged with?
Discussions are fluid things aren't they?
...hold on, are you winding me up here?
In isolation I found the post good and thought-provoking to an extent.
(And no I'm not trying to wind you up, I don't think trying to wind a person up is a motivation I've ever had whilst posting on here really, on the real. Sorry if you thought I was.)
or while operating heavy machinery
yet to understand the relationships with ther manifestations helps with understanding (like electricity and magnetism.....you cant understand one, best without the other, if you only discuss one aspect then you are only discussing the manifestation, not the cause)
Even in a small way.
Personally I think that most human behaviour can be boiled down and challenged by simply trying your hardest not to be a dickhead.
That stretches across the whole spectrum from being a dickhead about someone's size right the way to being a dickhead about someone's skin. I suppose confronting individual acts of dickheadishness is a slow and steady way to bring about change but I think it would be a lot quicker to just get to the heart of the issue and not be a dickhead in general.
Like that :)
(witness party politics in our 'super' democracies)
We now HAVE the ability to inform everyone in our society (something that wasnt there previously)
We now HAVE all he required evidence at our fingertips, to demonstrate the ridiculous of demonising individuals based on superficial appearance rather than quality of character.
What we lack is in the presentation and assemblage of logical arguments and viewpoints that can accomodate a lot of that evidence, instead we have disconnected issues that are approached individually, that allow people to have opinions that are inconsistant (logically and practically) with their other opinions, and we should be trying to guide people to forming more joined up thinking, that can be flexible so that it can allow for new evidence to be considered properly........instead we have partizan or polaraised debate, which is the only format of debate that a lot of people seem to consider the only 'true way' .....because it is convention that they are familiar with.
Try mashing it all up a bit, and people call you batshit and irrelevant.....and whilst it is true that you may be making yourself irrelevant to the extant, increasingly ineffective, method of discussion and decision making, it does not mean that your mash up is irrelevant as to a more beneficial way that our society should move towards, with regard to discussion and understanding............but, perhaps people are just not ready for that.......for me.....................................YET............this is not yet, "The age of Ultron" (saw it lastnight in :D )
I'd have to disagree with that, although I guess the definitions of "overweight" and "bad skin" haven't really been defined clearly enough.
the Brazil 2014 Panini album. Bunch of losers! Just spent hundreds of quid on fucking stickers!
I only just noticed my original spelling mistake. Good spot.
was that Dove are basically playing the "you're inadequate without our product" game that most advertisers play, and so aren't really in a position to throw stones. A few years ago, fat-shaming wasn’t really recognised outside of academic circles. Society could change in another few years, and leave Dove’s ‘real beauty’ angle out in the cold in any number of ways. Hence, I find their opportunism nauseating. I'm sorry if that's offensive to anyone.
I think you've been treated appallingly in this thread. And that's the second time in as many weeks I've said that you.
I'm not the most right-on person on DiS, but I'm hardly the most unreconstructed poster either. Again, I'm assuming it must be something to do with my association with Moker.
can't you just leave it? you're like a bloody dog with a bone. PUT IT DOWN. (the bone, not the dog).
that was a post of 100% love and positivity
He has a load of atrociously Tory mates, though, poor bastard.
and bullying him, tbh. ;)
I thought I'd been pretty frank about what I thought and why. Of course, becoming a mod doesn't mean you cease to be allowed to have your opinion or partiality. Just wondered what the beeve was- still not 100% sure, but I'll butt out. shabubu is obviously well able to fight his/her own battels.
Just thought it was amusing how anyone could take his pro-moker post any other way and it seemed a good opportunity to make a referential joke. Ho hum...
"A few years ago, fat-shaming wasn’t really recognised outside of academic circles" That's definitely not true. Maybe you didn't hear the term but the notion has been around for ages.
I don't recall Dove ever playing off an inadequacy campaign: rather I think they use the alternative of 'life is better with our product' because they claim to make soap that includes moisturising aspects. This is a subtle difference, and an aspirational one.
Yes, their 'real beauty' campaign is a fairly obvious piece of opportunism, but then so is a lot of zeitgeist (I think that's the word) advertising. It is short-termism, but then that's better for some advertising than others.
if it wasn't advertising some kind of meal replacement / pill bullshit. Plus the boss of the firm sounds like a right prick.
by cutting beeves out of their diet, apparently
and woke up with a much flatter stomach today #pictureofhealth
Next person to reply is a cunt
i don't want to be a mod
He says can we wrap up our minor differences asap and make a final decision so he can make a new law on it that'd be grand ta.
the forum's a bit more beevey and interesting
if it weren't for fidel it'd be nothing but morning thread sociopath fake smiles
if I'd been on here yesterday
everyone read his post, then shut the fuck up and go home to your families.
Don't make me add him in here
For bemoaning the lack of beeves
270+ posts of beeving and railing against bodyshaming of fatties (me) and skinshaming of people with bad skin (me) and I still don't really feel anything about this advert.
Regardless of the advert's smugness and the terrible replies by the company this ad is really not that bad. It's pretty easy to ignore actually. What isn't easy to ignore is the fact that people who model plus size clothes are in many cases not plus sized (Buzzfeed did a thing on this recently) so that the clothes look much worse when the people they're actually intended for try them on, movie representations of chubby women who are either not chubby (Bridget Jones) or whose only purpose is to be the butt of numerous food/fat jokes and are rarely fleshed out (pun not intended) beyond that, and magazines/newspapers that are full of diets that magically make you drop 2 stone in 10 weeks!! These are IMO much more harmful and personal than an advert with an overtly photoshopped woman is. Can we now stop doing that DiS thing where we massively exaggerate the outrageousness of one tiny thing when much worse things have been normalised and ignored, cheers.
we can work through it one line at a time to make sure we do it correctly, as obviously it's impossible to think more than one thing is bad at once
They're exaggerating. It's like the boy who cried wolf. If tweeters have a huge hissy about how appalling one thing is, then move onto doing the same for something that's actually worse, it will have much less of an impact second time round and be less likely to actually do anything to solve the problem 💁
Imo it's pretty dreary to pull the old "actually there are more important things to get upset about", and then only back it up with some terrifically flimsy assertion that... I'm not even sure what, each time people protest a thing it's sequentially less effective? So... We have to pick an exact order? Protest should presumably have eroded into total ineffectiveness by now?
Every time, every time people feel like something is worth protesting over, some chump pipes up with "er actually guys there are more important things you should be whining about". It's derailing, it's diminishing, and it never really logically holds together anyhow.
Fingers crossed this post meets the standards of Internet User no-class, I'll for real be on the edge of my seat
what had happened to Freddie Gray, alas, only my style was railed against, I had rather hoped to introduce the concept of 'degree' into the thread....dove 'skinshaming' being thought by many people to be less of an thing than 'bodyshaming' so I thought it might do well to see another extreme about others attitude to 'physical' norms/differences by bringing in the extreme of predujices of skin colour leading (in several cases in the US) of homicide.....(I know its wider than that and also has many other facets, but our ability to discuss multi facets is obviously not up to it............as it is, I cannot just introduce ideas serepticiously, to try to broaden the discussion and widen the remit
is that our societies current extant method of trying to isolate a limited number, or single facet, and then discuss that, is obviously flawed/limited, as otherwise we would be a lot further on
which does not attempt to understanding in complex related matters, in discussions involving the public perceptions, which kind of nullifies the advantages that democratic elections could offer, and is also, in fact, encouraged by the method of elections, because there is the incentive of increased power, influence (or prestige) if one does not 'lose the (increasingly) short attention span' of an electorate that is 'numbed' by dramatic enter(and)info-tainment
I mean I don't think we've called it the worst thing ever. I think each thing addressed on an issue forces more other things to be addressed. The stuff you're talking about has been normalised but addressing this sort of advertising means that we can hope other bigger things get questioned.
I think it was ever the way: you chip away at the establishment, you don't turn it over. This is why people perceive things as not changing much, but they have improved in the last 50 years. It's slow and gradual.
Moreover, of course for you this might be considered old news for you, given what you've said, but the point of privilege is whether others don't notice. They are the ones who need to be made aware of the effects of something like this, IMO.
Discussing issue to issue on here is simply forming a microscopic mirror of that pissing, so to speak.
"chipping away" because I don't believe it IS pissing in the wind. And I think "liberal conscience" is a bullshit phrase. It's not right to target people like that and I think society should be grown up enough to want to be better. It's for the sake of that tiny change. It may salve some consciences, but if it raises awareness in the mind of someone who hadn't really considered it before then that's good enough, IMO.
Nor am I supporting the sort of drivel these protein cunts are spewing. And I can sort of see where you're coming from but without determined grassroots action nothing actually changes, and discussions become pointless dick waving exercises so a priveleged few can sit happy with consumerism.
but that's true of everything we discuss on here. I think the effects of the wider discussion in 'Social Media' and amongst people who see the defaced adverts is impossible to quantify.
And on the other side, I'm not sure dick waving exercises for a privileged few to feel better about consumerism necessarily drag society down either.
How a ton of people feel about themselves. We're in a better world for their happening.
Not sure I feel the seem about another wet "wah wah moral consumer capitalism can't be a thing" post on an message board tbh
We've become the product and they're trying to sell people themselves. I never said moral consumerism can't be a thing dummy, but removing the need for real action or change from an imagined audience means its more for the commentators sake than the public.
but the words keep swirling around and coalescing into http://bit.ly/1ODsCef
The ad sells a lifestyle in an exploitative way. People make themselves feel better about living in such a shit world by pretending their words have an effect on that.
Your post was bafflingly opaque. Even your clarification here is a bit, "huh?"
We're all stuck up pointless creek.
not people on here?
Talking about the ad campaign
f_c's point a couple of posts up is worth going back to: that campaigning against it and responding to it has probably made a few people feel better.
The 'just get used to it bro' stuff is just such a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of the way that people tick. As is the idea that 'dick waving' is somehow separate or mutually exclusive from grassroots action.
Why yes, all human thought emerges fully-formed from the brain! Heaven forbid that someone's discussion of an issue on a forum should contribute to the development of their thoughts on that issue. Or that it could reflect wider attitude shifts in society.
Incidentally, what is it about debate on forums and the internet that provokes this kind of dead-eyed response? Imagine interjecting into a conversation between two people discussing the fact that they don't like the Protein World to tell the two conversants that they're pissing into the wind for the sake of their liberal consciences.
The fact that as it is the campaigners against this deem it more important, probably rightly, to chastise the ads (despite it giving the ads more publicity in doing so) just illustrates how entrenched the culture that eventually sicks up these sort of ads actually is.
That this sort of ad will more than likely pop up again in even worse ways.
is about people not accepting it as a viable product.
Re-reading your earlier post you might be putting forward the Katie Hopkins-type argument that if you ignore something like this it'll go away, which remains as untrue for Hopkins as it does with this. If you let these things slide by uncommented they become part of the background noise of everyday life - normal, even - which in the long-term is so much worse than giving publicity to one individual or campaign.
BUT our society has mechanisms that still pander to predjudice of some form or another.....politics and marketing do that to try gain some advantage, they would rather have gain of a type of predjudice (on that hasnt been outlawed or fully identified and accepted yet) rather than to try to not pander and exercise peoples predjudice muscles. These mechanisms use the mantra of ....its what the people want, we have to listen to them (when they know it is an inarticulate voice without a grounding of understanding or knowledge of interalated 'things') or they say, 'its what the market demands' Yes....because you fucking expanded that fucking market.
Neither politics or marketing/advertising/commerce seems capable of abandoning short term gain over converting people to not just question manifestations of predjudice, but to question the predjudice impulse itself. You can chip away forever, but another 'other' will (not just become apparent after you remove the current worst one) expand to fill its place.
Negative human emotions are, if you like, orchestrated by marketing/commerce and by politics, for gain, not for the best interest of the individual humans, but to channel their woes/fears into 'opportunities' for the movers and shakers.
It's just like, see a thread balloon to nearly 300 replies very quickly, assume something's been massively blown out of proportion. I have some *really* horrible stories about people I don't know being weird about my weight from when I was a teen (when I was thinner than I am now, and ffs I'm not even that fat) so getting the impression people are making a mountain out of a molehill in the scheme of things is pretty irritating. But yeah, I guess if it makes people more aware of negative advertising then that's probably a good thing.
a discussion about how seriously we should take it, hence why the actual back and forth is a bit less of what normally happens on here.
I just don't see any harm comes of more people starting to move from "it's just how it is" to "should it be like this?" which is why I've spent so much time in here discussing it. I don't feel like society has anything to lose by challenging stuff like this.
Society needs to have a proper conversation about wealth/poor shaming pretty fucking soon
But by pointing out critiques of supposedly 'worse' examples of how oppressive norms relating to bodies are established, you are actually demonstrating that they are already partially exposed and subject to critique. Lots of people have (clearly) already noticed these phenomena and written about them too.
Do these current critiques, of e.g. movie representations of chubby women, actually explain the fundaments of how/why the way that we understand body size is oppressive? I'm not sure that they do. They are good examples of how it is instantiated but I don't think there's really a well established account of this.
Maybe people have found this advert interesting because it's not necessarily immediately obvious to us why it's bad to present the 'aspiration' of weight loss and thinness and/or to do it in this way. It could be a more latent example that needs to actually be unpacked and discussed and helps us get at understanding the origins, consequences, meanings of body shaming, body 'fascism' and so on.
You say “It's pretty easy to ignore actually.” but why would your aim be ignore it?
Why would it be a bad thing to generate more knowledge and understanding about this?
I find these 'pick your fights wisely' sort of arguments really silly. Especially when they're not even applied to actual campaigns (which would need strategic direction and priority setting) but to very everyday critiques (which are often productive and illuminating). I'm not saying this 'subvertising' is an entirely effective strategy; it obviously falls short. But it's just a springboard and something to build on.
People are obviously trying to articulate that there is something 'outrageous' about this. Even if their critique doesnt quite hit the spot, I think it's really important that it's given as much outlet as possible...
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, except that I'm wrong.
Already conceded to Theo the awareness side is a positive but I don't get the impression from Twitter, Facebook or anything on here that this is causing an epiphany for anyone who isn't already aware of fat shaming etc. Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen anything suggesting it's doing anything more than preaching to the choir. I really don't think there's anything silly about believing that social media outcries only have limited credit as a tool to effect change - nothing has unlimited credence in challenging the status quo. If that's the main bone of contention then there's not really any point getting into a big debate about that.
He often gives the most insightful and thoughtful posts.
I just don't understand a lot of what he posts. (Sorry Creaks.)
On the one hand you're saying this is all preaching to the choir. At the same time you're saying people are more "outraged" than they're meant to be and that it's not as bad as they think it is. Surely that's a difference of opinion?
The fact that people are arguing about it and people like Georgia and Johnny rat are having to explain their position surely shows its not an area of common ground.
What you call "social media outcries" aren't campaigns (not sure anyone is saying they are). But they're often necessary precursors to actual social change. don't think anyone's labouring under the false impression that twitter has "unlimited credence". But it's undoubtedly somewhere for stuff that would otherwise go unnoticed to become politically contested.
Also, mean this in a positive way, but if you want people to talk about those other things like body image and representations of fat women then why don't you raise those issues rather than having a go at other people for discussing something they see as valid?
yeah, so much this.
"social media outcries" often aren't organised, it's simply people choosing to air an opinion of social media - some opinions just so happen to be the same, which in turn will motivate others to make change and start petitions and organise people etc.
i'm hugely passionate about representation myself because i don't see enough people represented who exist within and are affected by the intersections of multiple forms of oppression, like myself, and also because i understand it's importance. however, i don't personally take to twitter because it's not something i've ever used.
as well as people sitting on the fence and saying that because they aren't personally 'outraged' then it mustn't be that much of a problem, even if they are 'fat' or women, so 'should' be, there are plenty women saying that they don't see anything wrong with the adverts because it serves them as 'motivation' for the gym and they've set them as their phone backgrounds etc. being critical isn't just being for or against something.
what people get out of throwing their energy into sneering about "preaching to the choir", "twitterstorms", "tumblr activism" etc. etc. rather than doing something helpful. Even when we're talking about actual out in the world action being taken, with the defacing of posters etc!
like, people will claim to support cause x, but their plan of action seems to be:
1) complain about people doing stuff to support cause x not doing it right
2) end plan
good one, champs
"of course I support x, it's just that the only actions I actually take about it are to knock and diminish the efforts of other people trying to support it"
is moaning about 'tumblr feminists' and 'twitterstorms' instead of being critical is the new 'i'm not like the other girls'?
like, I don't think most of these people are actually concern trolls, but it does make their actions identical to concern trolls. so, *shrug*
Life ain't nothing but beaches & shores
when discovered she was sometimes worried, but was often as not congratulated, especially by women.
often regretted that I hadnt come up with something more pithy, after the deed was done.
With all the extra straw that would be a bridge too far over the rubicon for the camel with the bad back
on skinny shaming (looooooooool)
I expected this to be dire, but it's fairly entertaining:
oh yeah soz it's relevant to your link sorta cos there's a nice comparison to ryanair
it's poss a bit more like american stores loudly declaring they won't serve the gays to bring in the bigot dollar though innit
they are not going to say that marketing is a bad thing (which most marketing is....I mean seriously seriously bad.....but in a very mundane almost inperceptable way)
but people want to have their cake AND eat it. Fit people are more attractive. If you're overweight or unhappy with your body, then do something about it. If you like eating chips all the time, do that. If you're so weak that you want to eat chips AND feel sad because you feel theres peer pressure, then you're a weakling simpleton.
I know everyone's incredibly fucking bored of it already, but wanted to chuck my 2 pence in.
I know a girl who is a 'Social Media Executive & Brand Ambassador' for Protein World. When I say 'know', we've met a handful of times and are Facebook friends. She seems to have got the job exclusively because she's very good looking, with an incredible, albeit surgically enhanced, figure, and consequently has a sizeable social media following of her own. As such, it doesn't surprise me at all that their general response on social media has been clueless, and actually pretty despicable. The entire place seems to be staffed with people employed for their physiques rather than their intelligence or ability.
I thought the model's own response to the backlash was pretty interesting. Not least of all pointing out that she's a strict vegan, which presumably rules her out from being able to consume the majority of Protein World's produce, as it's largely whey based.
The free press they've got out of the uproar has been unbelievable, and what's most galling is that the CEO and his cohorts are trying to make out like this was their masterminded tactic all along. Not a fucking chance, but fair play to them on having the audacity to take the Katie Hopkins route of generating brand awareness through being unashamedly evil.
I'm fucking stunning and a genius with it, so I could never go in for that.
Perhaps I should have made clearer that in addition to being very good looking, she's also not the brightest, and a bit of a shady character. As such it's fairly clear they've not employed her for her ability or experience, but rather because she upholds the brand image they're trying to portray. If they employ this policy company wide then it goes some way to explaining their response to this whole furore.
I already apologised to fidel. We're cool.
most people are a complete fucking state. Think that's the main issue with the ad obviously
my face goes brown and my belly just goes slightly pink
but I would hypothesise that your face skin is better prepped for tanning as it sees the sun far more often on a casual basis, whereas most bellies get a sporadic blasting of mega-rays and nothing in between.
should be at 11st for the summer. think that's the perfect weight.
i still think that campaign should have directly addressed the fact that it's for sodding meal replacements more, instead of just 'unrealistic body image' and a sinister, imposing question
you old, out-of-touch nerdlinger
Should just post what everyone else has and then add, "as said above" but seem more emphatic and angry? Is that how the kids do it now?
Note the Microsoft Windows version, this is what I see but very tiny
hence it looks nothing like what you guys are describing.
Also, given it has four different names I'm going to say it's fine that it is checkout. Basically emojis are shit for this reason.
the sassy/hair flip one
You send it to someone as a hair-flip from your Apple device and their Android makes it look like an Alien is about to obsequiously carry their bags...
these tiny images?
It seems like a bit of a palava, are they like characters? or what?
box of that site.
and you have to enable them on (some?) Apple handsets.
How do you know what the one you're using is, though? You just pick a picture you think matches something and, as we've seen, you end up doing it wrong. That's an Information Person that you've decided is a hair flick...
I thought you were being sassy, but you were being INFORMATIVE!?
stupid android idiots.
who clearly haven't made a standard.
but aren't they made by each platform to interpret them?
At least the iOs versions follow a more standardised set I believe, then other platforms (Android, FB, Twitter, et al) have interpreted them from there.
I'd guess Apple were just there first outside Japan, so are perceived as the standard.
that that's only the second use of the word 'problematic' ITT
yes I am
I'm a bit lost.