The best that men can get..

[Valrifell]

...They test razors on fucking animals?

Probably their foams and whatnot, too. No one's going to be mad if your test foam causes hair loss or something if the subject isn't human. Honestly, I'd rather they test on animals than people.

There's no reason to test on animals, tho.

[West Leas Oros 2]

OK, flag on the play for a second.

Where the fuck is the idea that this advert is somehow "anti-White" coming from?

Because the only men shown to be displaying sexist and dangerous behavior are white, while the vast majority of the "Model Men" that the commercial is showing... aren't.

This is more a problem with the framing than anything.

The ad’s framing, 99% of the time, is pretty shit.

[The Technocrates]

Of course someone can dislike a commercial; however, the reason for not liking a commercial is BS in of itself. You can dislike a commercial all you want, but if you get mad at a commercial for saying that men should hold other men accountable for their acts, then that's on you for deciding to get offended. Hell, I could have decided to not have replied but I did. Why did I reply? I don't know, I have work to do and I don't want to do it. Maybe I'm not the best I can be right now. Maybe I'm not the best a man can get.

Okay, let me give you an example.

What do you think would happen if there was an commercial from a brand telling women to stop false accusing men of rape, throwing babies in dumpsters and abusing their children? Would people be annoyed at it? Of course they would.

If there was an ad telling muslims to stop blowing themselves up, people would get mad.

I don't know if i got my point through because i'm really bad at using examples, but do you kinda understand the backslash now?

I think you're using bad examples. I think the main controversy is a difference of view point. I don't see this commercial telling all men to stop being racist or sexists or rapists. I see it as telling men to do not let other men do bad things. To hold them accountable to their actions.

[New haven america]

Because the commercials main message was that the company and men need to be better.

The problems come in where you look at the framing and subtext (And honestly, you'd probably be better off focusing on this stuff if you want to get anywhere with your argument).

Right, the framing and subtext are racist, either against minorities or against white males, depending on whether you buy into the notion the advert is positive (it's racist against minorities) or the advert is vilifying men (it's racist against whites.).

No no, you see, it's how your presenting this fact.

You're treating it as if "white men bad" is one of the main messages, when it's not. Attacking the company's history or how the message doesn't apply to most men in general would be a better approach. Also, you can look at the commercial from multiple POV's, I know you hate this but from a Feminist perspective, this commercial's absolute drivel and probably won't do anything to help or raise awareness for the things presented in it.

[Ostroeuropa]

OK, flag on the play for a second.

Where the fuck is the idea that this advert is somehow "anti-White" coming from?

Because the only men shown to be displaying sexist and dangerous behavior are white, while the vast majority of the "Model Men" that the commercial is showing... aren't.

This is more a problem with the framing than anything.

For contrast, imagine an advert doing the reverse of this and how that would be perceived.

It's a striking example of progressive bias. This was either a subconscious bias decision because the ideology caused the person making the advert to view white men as villainous and minority men as heroic, a conscious ideological decision demonstrating racism, or a reaction to the atmosphere progressives have fostered and deciding it was simply safer to cast white men as the villains to avoid backlash from that camp.

If the majority of both groups of men were white and a minority of both groups an ethnic minority, that would reflect reality. However, it goes far beyond that.
The disproportionate characterization goes far beyond what would be expected from casting men without their race being a factor in which roles you cast them to play, and that is by definition pretty fucking racist and stereotypical.

So which is it, is the person who made the advert a subconscious racist against whites, or a conscious racist against whites? It's fairly clear their race WAS a factor in which roles they were selected to play. The only question is why, and if you're feeling skeptical, where does that racism come from.

In my opinion it's the result of progressive ideology and their rhetoric and ideological framing of issues surrounding privilege and especially white men who they have made into their outgroup.

[The Technocrates]

Because the only men shown to be displaying sexist and dangerous behavior are white, while the vast majority of the "Model Men" that the commercial is showing... aren't.

This is more a problem with the framing than anything.

For contrast, imagine an advert doing the reverse of this and how that would be perceived.

It's a striking example of progressive bias. This was either a subconscious bias decision because the ideology caused the person making the advert to view white men as villainous and minority men as heroic, a conscious ideological decision demonstrating racism, or a reaction to the atmosphere progressives have fostered and deciding it was simply safer to cast white men as the villains to avoid backlash from that camp.

The disproportionate characterization goes far beyond what would be expected from casting men without their race being a factor in which roles you cast them to play, and that is by definition pretty fucking racist and stereotypical.

calm down dude, you sound just like an SJW, but more right wing.

[Scomagia]

Probably their foams and whatnot, too. No one's going to be mad if your test foam causes hair loss or something if the subject isn't human. Honestly, I'd rather they test on animals than people.

There's no reason to test on animals, tho.

Yeah, just possibly burn or maim desperate human test subjects. It doesn't matter. Just as long as the fwuzzy wittle wabbits don't get hurt, right?

Realistically, you need to test products. Some of those products are going to have serious reactions. The question is whether you'd prefer to see animals bear the consequences of those tests or, you know, human beings.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Okay, let me give you an example.

What do you think would happen if there was an commercial from a brand telling women to stop false accusing men of rape, throwing babies in dumpsters and abusing their children? Would people be annoyed at it? Of course they would.

If there was an ad telling muslims to stop blowing themselves up, people would get mad.

I don't know if i got my point through because i'm really bad at using examples, but do you kinda understand the backslash now?

I think you're using bad examples. I think the main controversy is a difference of view point. I don't see this commercial telling all men to stop being racist or sexists or rapists. I see it as telling men to do not let other men do bad things. To hold them accountable to their actions.

I see it as implying that men are by default bad, and the men who are good “overcame their nature” by accepting the doctrines they promote. It’s a corporation telling us their way is the only path to “goodness”. Men are sinful, and ought repent. Repent by accepting the Gillette doctrine. Repent by spreading the doctrine. Corporations do this all the time for all sorts of beliefs. Corporate evangelizing, if you will.

[Ostroeuropa]

Right, the framing and subtext are racist, either against minorities or against white males, depending on whether you buy into the notion the advert is positive (it's racist against minorities) or the advert is vilifying men (it's racist against whites.).

No no, you see, it's how your presenting this fact.

You're treating it as if "white men bad" is one of the main messages, when it's not. Attacking the company's history or how the message doesn't apply to most men in general would be a better approach. Also, you can look at the commercial from multiple POV's, I know you hate this but from a Feminist perspective, this commercial's absolute drivel and probably won't do anything to help or raise awareness for the things presented in it.

It's not one of the main messages per se, but it's one of the things that the advert communicates. I've looked at the advert from tonnes of viewpoints, admittedly not a feminist one in particular.

Chiefly my beef with it, the thing that pisses me off most about it, is the isntitutional thing I talked about earlier, idk if you saw it.

Another problem is that this approach comes from the feminist movements utter denial of their historical failure to be an equality movement. They're once again being gynocentric and think just because women can think differently and most of their problems get solved the same is true of men. Women have that luxury because the feminist movement has fixed the legal and institutional barriers that forced them to think that way in the first place. Men do not have that luxury because feminism actively fought and suppressed the notion that men faced legal and institutional barriers.

This is feminism finally trying (and failing spectacularly, but for ONCE they might actually be trying) to be an equality movement. The problem is they're waffling about disinfectant and a bandage while the bloody arrow is still stuck in. Your forebears were horribly self absorbed and left us dealing with 1st and second wave issues, and so we don't get to focus on just changing the way we think and having it all work out for us.

Men aren't violent because they "think wrong.". A lot of it is due to the boys crisis in education leaving them with little prospects.

What, you think men are just going to up and decide to be more trustful of women with all these laws in place? They're going to be better fathers and so on without paternity leave, without equal custody in the court systems? Just think better and it'll all be okay? You think courts won't get unbiased while we still have these people abusing their institutional monopoly on DV/Rape to vilify us constantly and lower everyones empathy? While they're still ignoring that men are punished more than women for taking time off?

It's just a massive "let them eat cake" moment from people in denial.

They understand it when it comes to women, the process that had to come before this point. But they can't bare to admit the same process needs to happen for men first because then they can't pretend its all down to how men think and that's the problem, because then they have to confront their movements sordid history and actually analyze all the fucked up and terrible shit it has done to make these things worse.

Stop acting like mens issues are down to the way they think. The way men think is down to mens issues. You can't change it first, it has to come after, when the thoughts are a lingering after effect left around through inertia rather than a self-preserving reaction to the environment. They're aware of that when it comes to women, but their arrogance and willful ignorance of the institutional sexism men face is why they push this silly shit. It lets them pretend to care about men while ignoring the substance of the problem.

"Hur hur, you don't have to use an umbrella outside it's not raining anymore." - said the person who doesn't understand it's still raining where you live.

Yeah yeah anti-feminist "ranting" w/e, it's a valid observation imo.

[New haven america]

For contrast, imagine an advert doing the reverse of this and how that would be perceived.

It's a striking example of progressive bias. This was either a subconscious bias decision because the ideology caused the person making the advert to view white men as villainous and minority men as heroic, a conscious ideological decision demonstrating racism, or a reaction to the atmosphere progressives have fostered and deciding it was simply safer to cast white men as the villains to avoid backlash from that camp.

The disproportionate characterization goes far beyond what would be expected from casting men without their race being a factor in which roles you cast them to play, and that is by definition pretty fucking racist and stereotypical.

calm down dude, you sound just like an SJW, but more right wing.

They're called Alt-Righters.

Come on, make an effort to be offensive. It can't be that hard, can it?

[Valrifell]

There's no reason to test on animals, tho.

Yeah, just possibly burn or maim desperate human test subjects. It doesn't matter. Just as long as the fwuzzy wittle wabbits don't get hurt, right?

Realistically, you need to test products. Some of those products are going to have serious reactions. The question is whether you'd prefer to see animals bear the consequences of those tests or, you know, human beings.

I mean, then I guess there's just no reason why most cosmetic industries jumped off animal testing. It's not like we can't simulate human skin or determine how a product will react by the proportion of chemicals in a given substance and how we react, it's not like we just toss whatever the fuck we want.

Cosmetics rarely maim people, and the claim of "serious reactions" is dubious at best. At worst, human subjects would experience minor irritation and/or inflammation plus minor chemical burns. Besides, it's helpful to know how your product reacts on human skin regardless if you're selling to humans, considering animals only provide an analogue and the real deal is probably better.

[The Technocrates]

I think you're using bad examples. I think the main controversy is a difference of view point. I don't see this commercial telling all men to stop being racist or sexists or rapists. I see it as telling men to do not let other men do bad things. To hold them accountable to their actions.

I see it as implying that men are by default bad, and the men who are good “overcame their nature” by accepting the doctrines they promote. It’s a corporation telling us their way is the only path to “goodness”. Men are sinful, and ought repent. Repent by accepting the Gillette doctrine. Repent by spreading the doctrine. Corporations do this all the time for all sorts of beliefs. Corporate evangelizing, if you will.

If that is their message, then they are surely mistaken. I would say all people have natural urges towards their bodies; however, because of our more developed brains we can control them a bit better. But this is not always the case because men and women kill, men and women are greedy, and men and women do horrible stuff. As a result, we have government and civilization to enlighten us, mainly government. Without government we'd be savages. All hail the divine government.

[West Leas Oros 2]

calm down dude, you sound just like an SJW, but more right wing.

They're called Alt-Righters.

Come on, make an effort to be offensive. It can't be that hard, can it?

*grumbles something about cucks*

I’ll be honest, SJWS and the Alt-Right are the only cases where horseshoe theory applies.

[The Technocrates]

calm down dude, you sound just like an SJW, but more right wing.

They're called Alt-Righters.

Come on, make an effort to be offensive. It can't be that hard, can it?

You're right, I severely do not like Trump, there I said it.

[The Technocrates]

They're called Alt-Righters.

Come on, make an effort to be offensive. It can't be that hard, can it?

*grumbles something about cucks*

I’ll be honest, SJWS and the Alt-Right are the only cases where horseshoe theory applies.

The same way SJWs make excuses for not being racist and sexist towards white men, is exact way the Alt-Right makes excuses towards why they are not racist and sexist

[Ifreann]

The point is stupid. Why are most people in visual mass media, as a whole, white men? You're holding this ad to a standard that most visual mass media fails and acting like that's a strike against this ad specifically. If this ad is racist, then it's racist in the same way that nearly everything on TV is.

This ad specifically is trying to boost a progressive narrative. If anything it should be racially conscious given that this is supposedly a characteristic of the modern feminist movement, but it appears to have fallen to the wayside when it allows them to vilify white men.

This ad, like almost everything else on TV, over-represents white men. If that's a problem in this ad, it's a problem in almost everything else on TV. And in the cinemas. And on the stage. And so on.

But when you look at it like that, it seems obvious that's what's happening is that white men are getting most of the parts in most of everything. And I suspect that that's not the point you're getting at.

[The Technocrates]

This ad specifically is trying to boost a progressive narrative. If anything it should be racially conscious given that this is supposedly a characteristic of the modern feminist movement, but it appears to have fallen to the wayside when it allows them to vilify white men.

This ad, like almost everything else on TV, over-represents white men. If that's a problem in this ad, it's a problem in almost everything else on TV. And in the cinemas. And on the stage. And so on.

But when you look at it like that, it seems obvious that's what's happening is that white men are getting most of the parts in most of everything. And I suspect that that's not the point you're getting at.

It's almost as if corporations don't understand the common peasant.

[Galloism]

To a large (but certainly not complete) degree, yes - as primary enforcers of social norms, particularly in regards to the stoicism of men (many women are repulsed when men show weakness, so men learn not to show it).

Ahh but the social norms; do we not give them that right when we used to think men worked and women raise children? Stoicism is ingrained as we don't want to show weakness to the proverbial pack. Have you not heard men call other pussies?

I have. Not as often as I've heard women do it, or things of that nature, but I have heard men do it, yes.

As to being repulsed in general? Hmmmm?.......I would argue against that statement. In general I would say it's in various degrees of emotion. Sure there are those who are repulsed. I would say a majority don't mind some emotions. I think those would be tempered if the crying was a constant thing.

It's a general revulsion at weakness. Even people who are "woke" have the same instant sexist wrong reaction.

Men who attempt to share being abused and raped by women are often shamed and mocked - especially by women. Which makes sense - with their greater social power, they tend to be greater abusers in the social realm. Power corrupts, the more power, the more corruption.

That I find hard to believe. Especially, if they are victims of sexual assault. I would have to see/read the situation. Was it somebody claiming it just to be an ass? Was it a genuine claim in a setting say talking about rape?

You decide.

It's actually worth note men among men are more apt to talk about these things - because there's less enforcement of social norms in male-only spaces. It's one of the reason bromances are on the rise.

One on one? I can see it but even then I would say it would have to be a tight friendship. Just like women; They tend to share things with people they really trust. Back at uni I was rather startled by how many girls I associated with admitted to a sexual assault in their lives. I have that kind of persona a person trusts as one gal once once told somebody "I tell him things I wouldn't tell my mother!?!" Anyway. Personally? I have only heard a couple stories of male sexually assault from friends show are gay.

Well, i've heard thousands now. But that's not really fair - because I run an online support system for men who have been beaten and abused.

It's typically in mixed company that men are more afraid to speak.

I believe that. Have you seen many women speak about it in such settings?

That's a fair point, incidentally. Women are somewhat more socially inhibited in mixed company, just as men are. However, as society has shifted, society has been telling women it's more acceptable to speak what they think, while telling men it's less. So while both used to be inhibited to such to a similar degree, our sexist lean of society is fixing that.

Or breaking it. You pick.

As far as the tropes, you are 100% right - these are social norms enforced by men and women both. However, they are enforced especially by women - as weakness is revolusion to a large number, and hence why even in response to this video, which literally addresses the problem of enforced male stoicism, the common refrain to complain about it is to paint the men complaining as crybabies and sissies.

Hmmm? I think both genders are still at fault with that one. Look through our history; imagery of men has pretty much been manly men. The only times emotion is shown is when to deride our enemies (thinking of battle scenes with the enemy fleeing. I don't know why I thought of that ).

I am not accepting that any emotion is gets a man tossed from the proverbial breeding pool.

Oh no, there's certain acceptable ones. Battle losses.

Because we tend to excuse or at least partially excuse murder of babies performed by women. Sometimes we even make it a lesser crime (infanticide, where codified, is a lesser crime than murder).

Well? It's probably a little more involved then a simple right or wrong. It's only recent times where postpartum depression was acknowledged as a real issue. Are you suggesting there is an effort by women to make sure crimes committed by women deserve lessor sentences?

Yes. Very specifically. Did you see the efforts by women to make sure that women, who already receive the benefit of substantial sexism against men in the justice system, seek even more privilege?

Does every man say "boys will be boys"? Does it have to be every single person without even a single exception in all of human history to be a problem?

It's not a great argument to raise as it wasn't implied that all say it. I have heard "boys will be boys" in conversation, on the screen and seen it in text. The only time I heard "kill all the men was followed "take all the women"

You probably avoid feminist circles. A wise decision.

I wish I was so wise.

-edit- as I type this I did a simple check and found some editor on huffpo made a comment. I am ever surprised what people will toss out on twitter and think nothing of it.

The funny thing is, "kill all men" gets no public backlash. Anything directed towards women like that would see you likely out of a job.

Again, I'm ok with lots of visions of equality - but we need equality.

It has a lot to do with female enforcement of gender norms. They don't bear 100% of the responsibility, but the data suggests they do bear the majority of it.

I agree with that. I would add it's fall out from the gender rules of old. Men make the money and women take care of the house.

Yeah, that's another gender role that has disproportionately benefited women. Not 100%, but disproportionately.

[New haven america]

They're called Alt-Righters.

Come on, make an effort to be offensive. It can't be that hard, can it?

*grumbles something about cucks*

I’ll be honest, SJWS and the Alt-Right are the only cases where horseshoe theory applies.

And I get insulted by both sides.

Yay! \(^_^)/

[Wallenburg]

This ad specifically is trying to boost a progressive narrative. If anything it should be racially conscious given that this is supposedly a characteristic of the modern feminist movement, but it appears to have fallen to the wayside when it allows them to vilify white men.

This ad, like almost everything else on TV, over-represents white men. If that's a problem in this ad, it's a problem in almost everything else on TV. And in the cinemas. And on the stage. And so on.

But when you look at it like that, it seems obvious that's what's happening is that white men are getting most of the parts in most of everything. And I suspect that that's not the point you're getting at.

That's because it doesn't fit his narrative that Gillette and their ad people hate white men.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

*grumbles something about cucks*

I’ll be honest, SJWS and the Alt-Right are the only cases where horseshoe theory applies.

And I get insulted by both sides.

Yay! \(^_^)/

Radical centrist gang ftw

[Torrocca]

They're called Alt-Righters.

Come on, make an effort to be offensive. It can't be that hard, can it?

*grumbles something about cucks*

I’ll be honest, SJWS and the Alt-Right are the only cases where horseshoe theory applies.

>Breaking out the horseshoe theory to draw equivalence between people that'd very much like to reenact the Holocaust and people who, at their very worse, violently defend the idea of social equality

[Western Vale Confederacy]

*grumbles something about cucks*

I’ll be honest, SJWS and the Alt-Right are the only cases where horseshoe theory applies.

>Breaking out the horseshoe theory to draw equivalence between people that'd very much like to reenact the Holocaust and people who, at their very worse, violently defend the idea of social equality

Did you mean: Reenact the Holocaust, but against classes instead of races or religions?

[Galloism]

*grumbles something about cucks*

I’ll be honest, SJWS and the Alt-Right are the only cases where horseshoe theory applies.

And I get insulted by both sides.

Yay! \(^_^)/

That's when you know you're doing something right.

[Torrocca]

>Breaking out the horseshoe theory to draw equivalence between people that'd very much like to reenact the Holocaust and people who, at their very worse, violently defend the idea of social equality

Did you mean: Reenact the Holocaust, but against classes instead of races or religions?

>implying that's what the alt-right want to do

lmao