« Dear MacWindows.com | Main | Come on crybaby, cry. »
For giving the finger to the self-entitlement of the "BlogDorkosphere". Yep, that's right, Target told bloggers "You're not that important to us".
Thank fucking god too. I cannot tell you how that Scoble/Winer-induced "SUCK OUR BLOGOCOCK" attitude of entitlement that the "blogdorkosphere" is rife with irritates me. I have not the words.
Poor Amy Jussel contacted to complain about an ad she found offensive. While we don't know the content of her initial contact, (she didn't post it), we know what Target's reply was:
“Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets,” a public relations person wrote to ShapingYouth.Now, that seems odd to me. If she called as a customer, why would Target even know about her site? More importantly, how would they know. The only logical explanation is that she made sure to reference it prominently in her initial contact. Amy confirms this:
I did not approach Target as ‘media’ but as a mom/shopper, heading up a nonprofit blog. I found their dismissal of citizen journalism and Web 2.0 media naive, arrogant, and inappropriate, especially since I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, being a loyal customer.
Then Target comes back with "Bloggers? Whatever", and the whining starts.
OMG, you want to see some bitchy ass whiners? Tell some blog to fuck off, that they don't count. Yeah. They can't take that.
See, I don't have a problem that Amy complained. That's her right. I have zero problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that a) Her assumption that Target would fall all over itself to agree with her, and b) That somehow, the fact that she runs a blog means anything. Both are examples of entitlement attitudes, but then, that's the "blogdorkosphere" for you.
Since she's offended byt Target's ad, why not approach them without trying to use her blog as leverage. Why would it matter? (I know we all know the answer. She already had her "WE MADE THEM CHANGE" post written in her head. Now she doesn't get to use that. Wah.) Why not approach them as a concerned customer and ask "hey, what's up with that?" But no, we have to mention our blogs, because blogs are the stick, right?
Well, if you're Target.....wrong.
Good job Target, I just may camp out when you open your new store closer to my house. Because when you tell the "blogdorkosphere" to fuck off, you make me all tingly and happy.
As far as the rest of the "blogdorkosphere" goes...how about you earn your rep rather than assuming you have one because you can work an online editor?
Technorati Tags:
Blogosphere = Dorkosphere, Blogosphere = Stupid, Target RULES
Posted by John C. Welch at 11:00 | Permalink
Comments
I've always tried to patronize our local equivalent, Fred Meyer, but I shop at Target every once in a while on the theory: "Hey at least it's not WalMart!" Now I have another reason to shop there.
Posted by:
Gatesbasher 
|
January 30, 2008 9:16 PM
Um…gosh, Jonathan, not sure where the vitriol is coming from but will assist you w/the (sadly, unreported) facts:
1.) I’m not naïve enough to believe ‘we made them change’ anything…nor did I ever ask them to take action whatsoever, if anyone read our original post all the way through (instead of the NYT condensed version) they’d see this wasn’t even about ‘one ad’ but a much larger conversation on ambient advertising’s impact on youth per the APA early sexualization data.
2.) I DID approach them as a concerned customer to simply ask ‘hey, what’s up with that?’ and bounced around multiple phone corridors/gatekeepers landing in a voicemail prompt to leave my vitals, including ‘where I was from’ so I gave them that info.
3.) I never used my blog as ‘leverage or a big stick’ whatsoever…per analytics, they were on my blog before I even phoned them (probably from the tag)
4.) As a newbie blogger (1+yrs) I’ve ‘earned’ a reputation through my own media analysis/ reporting, NOT my journalism credentials (which I also happen to have)---If I’d wanted to ‘use’ any ‘big sticks’ rather than query as a concerned parent/ad industry person coming from a ‘whassup/what were you thinking’ angle, I sure as heck would’ve pulled out the ‘big guns’ in terms of bloggers with mega-clout and reach far beyond my little nonprofit voice.
The only reason I’m even commenting to set the record straight here is to try to raise the bar on discourse and civility when it comes to fact-checking and context.
Posted by:
ShapingYouth |
January 31, 2008 3:26 PM
You may have noticed that vitriol is kind of what I do.
Note: You're not "from" a blog. A blog is not a place. It is not anything you can be "from". so why mention it?
Also, since Target gives the blogdorkosphere exactly the consideration it deserves, I'm not sure that you have a great grasp on how powerless your theoretical "big guns" are.
As well, the entire "I'm trying to raise the bar on discourse and civility" thing is playing to some inane myth that at some magical point in the past, discourse and argumentin' was somehow some magical civil thing that hewed to Robert's Rules of Order by the letter.
This is a myth, and has no basis in fact whatsoever. Human discourse has always been contentious, barely civil at best, and if you look at the history of the US Senate, has at times involved physical assault with walking sticks. So rather than wasting space on a myth, why not stick to your guns, and present your ideas in a direct, opinionated, blunt manner, without all the sidestepping and dissembling in the name of something that never existed?
Posted by:
John C. Welch 
|
January 31, 2008 5:10 PM
(Ok since I got an error on posting I'm sending this again Didn't copy the preface so it might be worded a bit differently. If it's a duplicate then beat me with a wet noodle.)
I wasn't going to comment to this but ShapingYouth's reply pretty much made me search out the original post which is linked below:
http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=969
What I posted to that thread is below:
I clicked through a series of links to find this post. Judging from the brouhaha surrounding it I figured I had better see the actual source. So let me tell you my reactions to this ad in the order they occurred.
1. Oh that is what I did at Lakeside to keep all the other kids off the center so I would be the last one up! (P.S. I'm a guy but all the girls did the same exact thing. It's called center of gravity.)
2. Ah I get it, snow gear so the idea is to make a snow angel.
3. Is she going to fall? (Finally got the perspective since the picture wasn't clear on that.)
4. Wow that reminds me of the people getting in velcro suites and throwing themselves at walls.
What happened next was I read through the comments here. It took me a bit but then I figured out what the hell you people were complaining about. Then I got what the fuss was about, you are obsessed with sex. It just colors all of your interpretations about everything.
Let me digress for a moment. I have this t-shirt some friends got me from Joe's Crab Shack tears ago. I personally love it since it shows quite a bit about the people that read it. The front reads "Got Crabs?" in the font of the "Got Milk?" adds. The back, reads "We do! Joe's Crab Shack."
I have received four different types of reactions from this t-shirt. The first is from children who either don't know what crabs are in either the edible or sexual sense. They look and then just go on with whatever the hell they are doing. The second is from people who get both senses and always, I really do mean always, ask to see the back of the shirt if they have never seen it before. The third is from 10-20 year olds who just snicker (exactly like I experienced and did 23 years ago) at every mention that might just possible relate to sex. The fourth is the people who only see the sexual connotation and either glare or tell me what a horrible person I am.
It's really only the fourth group that I used too laugh my ass off at. Then I realized that they might have to, or have raised, the 10-20 year olds that snickered. I don't even want to think about that poor kids who didn't even give it a second look.
The only thing that hyperawareness of sexual content of any kind, vague or no, teaches a child is to look for it everywhere and, more important, give it a special significance. Now what they do with it when they go to rebel, well I'll leave that for an exercise for the readers.
With that said I want to go back to why I had the reactions I did to this oh so horrible add. It is because my parents explained to me that advertisements where not reality. Oh and the showed it to me when I "really, really wanted the super cool toy!" I was probably 7 or 8 at the time. As I got older they also expanded on the earlier lesson a bit when it came to beer commercials and James Bond. When I got to junior high and took the human sexuality class where they explained in great detail all of the tricks advertisers use to make women, and men by the way, look far better in adds then they do in real life, pretty much cemented it for me.
What it comes down to is we need to teach children to deal with things. Not just cover them in a protective shell. Once that shell is broken, and be sure it will, they will be lost. It's one thing to teach them good values, whatever you think those are. It is quite another thing to have them exercise those values, and they do need to be exercised. Once they get out of that shell you want them to be as strong as they can be.
Isn't that really what shaping youth is about? Teaching them to be as strong and self reliant as they can be?
Posted by:
Michael Krzyzek |
February 1, 2008 2:16 AM
Hmm. Check ShapingYouth's thread today and for some reason my comment wasn't there. I figured it just got lost in the ether so I tried to repost it, typos and all.
Wow, I couldn't since it was a duplicate comment. So much for reasoned discourse.
Posted by:
Michael Krzyzek |
February 1, 2008 6:04 PM
Oh Phuul, you know as well as I what "reasoned discourse" is code for:
"We must all agree, because any form of conflict might mean that someone is possibly wrong, and that could make someone feel bad about themselves. So only posts that agree with everyone else will be allowed."
that, and you have a penis, and even worse, aren't ashamed of that fact, so we all know how long people like you are allowed in places like that.
Posted by:
John C. Welch |
February 1, 2008 10:32 PM
Ok that is weird. I just checked and, god damn, I do have a penis, although nowhere near as "long and lustrous" as yours I'm sure.
Oh and quoting me to me? I think that is one of the signs of the apocalypse. Although by my, albeit quick, count that would make 74 signs to date without an actual apocalypse. Hmm, probably forgot to carry the one somewhere.
Posted by:
Michael Krzyzek |
February 2, 2008 7:45 PM
Phuul: Unless your post had lots of cussing in it and it got sucked into our spam zapper it should've posted, so pls. resend!! I have posted ANY AND ALL comments w/zero edits...and will gladly do the same for yours.
This kinda talk, "We must all agree, because any form of conflict might mean that someone is possibly wrong, and that could make someone feel bad about themselves. So only posts that agree with everyone else will be allowed." ---Is just smarmy smack...and FALSE to boot. The only things that ever get bounced are the 'f- this and f- that' because I disagree that confrontational conversation is inherently uncivil...we've got discourse all over the board w/multiple views. Frankly, I find it tedious and boring to have trolls dump on my site without the testicular fortitude to at least leave a calling card to open a dialogue, they don't want to converse, they want to flame. You, on the other hand, John, seem to like your vitriol but are at least conversant and not anonymous, so last note, to be clear:
1.) I AM sticking to my guns. And I've been bullied by the best of 'em. I prefer to be civil, that's all. Not sugar-coating anything.
2.) I AM 'from' somewhere...I am blogging as the founder/E.D. of an org, not just as an individual. Yes, we're a nonprofit, beholden to none, but when I add a 'guest editor' onboard, it passes through our board, so yes, I am 'all of the above'...a customer, a blogger, a mom, a nonprofit, a former 'mainstream media' journalist AND 'from' S.Y., a place, a noun, and org, an entity.
3.) Totally agree that we need to teach kids to 'deal w/things' and not raise 'em in bubblewrap. But we're not talking shielding here...we're talking damage. It's not about sex, it's about fouling up kids' sexuality. Children are getting there body image/self-worth, and identity screwed up by adult innuendo, bump-n-thrust cues and being positioned as objects/vapid vessels in an appearance based culture. ---I've been filming a documentary for 3 years on the sociological impact of objectification (no, not the 'Target ad' that was MILD by comparison, it just added to the fray) on K-5 playgrounds. Once the internet feature is finished, you can catch it on the net, or maybe at Sundance.
4.) Your 'crabs' shirt is not a 'toddler tee' n'est ce pas? It may be crass/adult humor, but that's surround sound these days, you missed the point entirely...The "Hooter girl in training" toddler tee and playground pimp infant wear I dare say is a lame attempt at sophomoric 'hipster parents' trying to be 'oh so clever'...yet desensitizing an entire generation...
You need to see the 1st graders trying to diet, hear the 8 year old boys talk about 'gettin' some o' dat'---without even knowing what 'dat' IS...Check out the self-worth/depression stats and mental & physical health of kids lately, not lookin' too good for the home team.
Anyway, I've moved on but just wanted to once again set the record straight...You're welcome to Skype me and take this offline in voice if you sincerely want to try to have a conversation rather than just effuse animosity.
Posted by:
ShapingYouth |
February 4, 2008 3:43 AM
Totally agree that we need to teach kids to 'deal w/things' and not raise 'em in bubblewrap. But we're not talking shielding here...we're talking damage. It's not about sex, it's about fouling up kids' sexuality. Children are getting there body image/self-worth, and identity screwed up by adult innuendo, bump-n-thrust cues and being positioned as objects/vapid vessels in an appearance based culture. ---I've been filming a documentary for 3 years on the sociological impact of objectification (no, not the 'Target ad' that was MILD by comparison, it just added to the fray) on K-5 playgrounds. Once the internet feature is finished, you can catch it on the net, or maybe at Sundance.
Oh bullshit. Spare me the OMG, IF CHILDREN SEE TEH SEXX0RZ, TEY WILL BE DAMAGED! It's not Target's job to raise kids, it's their job to sell product. Sex sells. Period. Lemme take a look in your bathroom cabinet, I can prove that you buy into it as much as anyone.
Here's how you prevent that...actively parent your kid. When they start doin' stupid stuff, regardless of stripe, firmly, fairly, halt it. This idiocy that somehow, if we magically make advertising and the world around us not objectify sex, (and I absolutely DEFY you to show me any way to publicly mention sex, at any level, that cannot be construed into some form of objectification. Sex is inherently objectifying, which is why the pretty people have more.), that sexism will halt.
Nonsense. That will work about as well as the idea that if we remove the word "nigger" from common use, that racism will halt. It's magical thinking and it's bullshit.
Your 'crabs' shirt is not a 'toddler tee' n'est ce pas? It may be crass/adult humor, but that's surround sound these days, you missed the point entirely...The "Hooter girl in training" toddler tee and playground pimp infant wear I dare say is a lame attempt at sophomoric 'hipster parents' trying to be 'oh so clever'...yet desensitizing an entire generation...You need to see the 1st graders trying to diet, hear the 8 year old boys talk about 'gettin' some o' dat'---without even knowing what 'dat' IS...Check out the self-worth/depression stats and mental & physical health of kids lately, not lookin' too good for the home team.
And where, pray tell, are the goddamned parents pointing out that this sort of thing is wrong, and maybe turning off the friggin' TV? They ain't getting catchphrases like that without someone teaching them. Yet somehow, let's not blame generations of incompetent parenting, and so much focus on externally preserving self-esteem that somehow, the idea of telling the little dears "no" or, "when you say things like that, you're not exactly being smart, and here's why..." is now considered wrong too.
Maybe you should spend more time yelling at the people actually raising the kids than the people selling them stuff.
Posted by:
John C. Welch |
February 4, 2008 5:21 AM
Oh, I do, John, I do...but the arrogance of those that spew the stuff into the environs to begin with are usually not parents...as my guess is...you.
Got kids? Doubt it. Go to PackagingGirlhood.com, read Born to Buy, Consuming Kids, Buy, Buy Baby, the great Tween Buying Machine etc. and check out all the marketing evidence tied to the creation of these environs, that's UNDERMINING quite purposely this 'parental authority' you seem to think you have a handle on.
You'll see why we not only have parents, industry pros, scholars, and entertainment pros no longer willing to let the snarky simpletons (childless yuppies usually) call the shots to create a pop culture of 'evercool' that's polluting the planet.
Posted by:
ShapingYouth |
February 4, 2008 10:59 AM
ShapingYouth my post is exactly what was above without the header explaining I tried to post it to that thread. Just read through it and I don't think I excessively cussed either, although I did say ass. I did just try and re-submit it but I noticed that your last post was about closing the thread to comments. I didn't get an error so here is hoping.
While you may not realize this but the quote "We must all agree, because any form of conflict might mean that someone is possibly wrong, and that could make someone feel bad about themselves. So only posts that agree with everyone else will be allowed." was something I wrote about the whole "blogosphere code of conduct," basically a paraphrase on what I thought it was saying. I also stand by that quote. Given that context I hope you realize that I was giving my opinion on the code of conduct thing which I too think it is smarmy. Also hopelessly self righteous and completely misses the whole point of discourse.
Now on to your points, I'll use the numbers you used as a reference.
1. Well I didn't realize I was being bullying. I wrote quite a bit and hoped I was building and argument. But I'm pretty sure you weren't referring to my comment but the bit I just discussed above.
2. Ok I'm pretty sure this isn't directed at me either. I think you are confusing Bynkii and Phuul (me). Unless you are referring to the "carry the one somewhere" line which is my term for I messed something up. I wrote this comment here since I got to your post from this site and my attempts to post it on your site failed.
3. You apparently missed my point entirely. If you don't prepare children for the environment that they will be put into then of course they will be messed up. A larger issue is that you can't raise children to be in an environment that doesn't even exist anymore. It didn't even exist 30 years ago. All of the things you described I've seen in school back in the late 70's. Oh by the way I first learned the term "fuck" by overhearing a friends parent. Let me tell you I was the most popular kid on the playground of St. Margret Mary's for a week after I shared that one. But back to my point, you can't treat sex as something that is forbidden or naughty, you need to treat it as something that is a responsibility. And the whole self worth argument just screams out for better parenting.
4. Um no it was not a toddler's shirt. Again, missed the point entirely. Without the context then the joke just goes over their head. Kids don't CARE. They either know what the crustacean is or they don't. An STD doesn't even enter into it unless they already know what it is. If a child knows what the context is, then the parent needs to teach them to deal with it and understand it. Will that be easy? Of course not. But that is exactly what raising children is about.
You say you don't want to raise children in bubble wrap and I think you don't. What you are actively going for though is bubble wrap around society, to make it impossible to see anything objectionable at all. The funny thing is that is exactly what I object to.
Onto your last sentence. Not sure which effusion of animosity you are referring to. Regarding you and your post I wrote exactly two things, the comment and the point that after two days of trying I couldn't get a comment posted.
Posted by:
Michael Krzyzek |
February 4, 2008 1:33 PM
Oh, I do, John, I do...but the arrogance of those that spew the stuff into the environs to begin with are usually not parents...as my guess is...you.Ah...the moment I was waiting for.
Got kids? Doubt it. Go to PackagingGirlhood.com, read Born to Buy, Consuming Kids, Buy, Buy Baby, the great Tween Buying Machine etc. and check out all the marketing evidence tied to the creation of these environs, that's UNDERMINING quite purposely this 'parental authority' you seem to think you have a handle on.Well, my 14 year old son seems to not be buying into all the hype. Oh..wait...yes, see, I am in fact, a parent. Sorry to shatter your basic assumption. Well, not really. But let's set aside the utterly arrogant implication that somehow, if you aren't a parent you're not "qualified" to disagree with them.
See, I do in fact, exercise parental authority. Over his intarweb connection, the shows he watches at home, etc. You know, that inconvenient crap. As he gets older, and demonstrates ever-greater responsibility and a rather joyful tendency towards questioning what the world around him wants him to believe, I let him make more of his own decisions. i spent a lot of time, when he was younger, making sure that I countered the stupid he's bombarded with. It was a lot of work, and honestly, pretty damned thankless, since far too many of my parental "peers" were too busy insisting that the world change itself to conform with how they wanted to raise their child, rather than taking advantage of a valuable life lesson: the world does not revolve around you
It's really not hard to counter the marketing your kids get hit with, but it is tedious, and unrelenting work. The results are however, well worth it.
You'll see why we not only have parents, industry pros, scholars, and entertainment pros no longer willing to let the snarky simpletons (childless yuppies usually) call the shots to create a pop culture of 'evercool' that's polluting the planet.Oh yeah, that's it, I KNEW you were going to pull out the "Fuck people without kids" schtick. I knew it as sure as the sun exerts gravity, and evolution.
Such hypocrisy. Such aching hypocrisy. You sit there and insist, no demand the world conform and change to be a place of perfect mental, emotional, and probably physical safety for *your* children, and then when people have the GALL to ignore your demands, you decide they're naught but "snarky simpletons", the "childless yuppies", and therefore, unworthy of making any decision not vetted by a parent.
Pardon me, but that much entitlement just made me vomit in my mouth a little. The rest of us did not order you to spawn. The rest of us, including my son, get that no, the world does not fucking revolve around your offspring, or offspring in general, and that it is your job to raise your kids, not mine, not Target's, and not Hooters. You don't like that? Tough. Stop having kids if you can't be bothered to do the ENTIRE job.
But I will not allow my world to be turned into mindless smurfy pablum just because you can't be arsed to deal with the fact that your kid is not the center of the fucking universe. Once again, Terry Pratchett's wisdom shines:
She was not, herself, hugely in favor of motherhood in general. Obviously it was necessary, but it wasn't exactly difficult. Even cats managed it. But women acted as if they'd been given a medal that entitled them to boss people around. It was as if, just because they'd got the label that said 'mother', everyone else got a tiny part of the label that said 'child'...
Posted by:
John C. Welch |
February 4, 2008 2:58 PM
OK, I would never have posted to this thread again, but a fighting word has been uttered. Oh, you can't see my "Die, Yuppie Scum!" bumpersticker from there? Well, I have one! Despite using it as an epithet, I strongly suspect that that's exactly what "ShapingYouth" really is. Me, I'm too old to be a Yuppie, but I DO remember what it was like growing up in the sexless utopia that she fantasizes about. When I turned 8, Eisenhower was still President, and I was the horniest little bastard you'd never want to meet! So were all my friends. We all knew we wanted girls, the only difference was our abysmal, laughable ignorance of exactly what we'd DO with one if we had the chance.
ShapingYouth is typical of the ever-growing group of people who seem to think that ignorance of any subject makes it go away. Let me tell you this: ignorance of sex does not make sex go away. "Sexualization" does not ooze into your brain from the cultural environment, It oozes out of your glands. Knowledge about sex may make you more likely to HAVE sex, but if the number of girls who dropped out of my high school (class of '69--go Spartans!) because they got pregnant is any indication, probably not.
All the premature sexual knowledge that you think kids are exposed to today includes a lot of disinformation, but it also includes knowledge of how NOT to get pregnant, and how to avoid all the diseases that have been invented since I was a horny teenager. If they don't make use of that knowledge, whose fault is that? At least partially, I think it's stick-your-head-in-the-sand parents who think if they avoid the subject of sex and make it awkward enough for their kids to talk to them about sex, then the whole problem will go away. Or as Big Brother would say: "Ignorance is Strength."
Posted by:
Gatesbasher |
February 4, 2008 6:42 PM
Do your homework people...We are all about GIVING kids that knowledge openly, exposing them to critical thinking skills and NOT having parents 'bury heads in the sand' nor have pop culture pornify sexuality into a vapid, empty holding tank of hormones.
Our SEXTECH post will give you some idea of our enthusiasm for open conversation and positive media messages created by youth themselves... http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=997
We are on the SAME side...but you're so full of vitriol and self-righteous wordsmithing to hear yourself rant that you don't see it!!
We're brimming with educators, youth advocates, PhDs and doctors that are FAR from yuppiedom, as well as young teens like your 14 year old that are learning critical thinking skills to be able to navigate the pop culture environs in a healthier manner.
No one is trying to cocoon the kids here...no one is trying to censor...we are striving to 'raise the bar' of positivity. It's really not that hard to 'get.'
I'm disheartened with this thread of suppositions and knee-jerk reactions, but can tell there's some intelligent life forms here, so thought I'd 'try' to engage in a mindful manner...Sadly, it's proven to be a 'time sink,' with mutual stereotyping, so I'll say 'adieu' and go back to striving for more positive tonalities in media messaging and beyond.
Posted by:
ShapingYouth |
February 6, 2008 1:39 PM
Do your homework people...We are all about GIVING kids that knowledge openly, exposing them to critical thinking skills and NOT having parents 'bury heads in the sand' nor have pop culture pornify sexuality into a vapid, empty holding tank of hormones.Hmmm...interesting statement from someone who couldn't be bothered to do their homework on whether or not I had kids, and just assumed that because I don't agree with them, that I couldn't possibly have kids, and must be childfree yuppie scum. Physician, heal thyself.
Our SEXTECH post will give you some idea of our enthusiasm for open conversation and positive media messages created by youth themselves... http://www.shapingyouth.org/blog/?p=997But I like hootchie mamas selling me stuff. Boobies make me want to buy things!
We are on the SAME side...but you're so full of vitriol and self-righteous wordsmithing to hear yourself rant that you don't see it!!Are you even capable of seeing the irony in the stuff you post?
We're brimming with educators, youth advocates, PhDs and doctors that are FAR from yuppiedom, as well as young teens like your 14 year old that are learning critical thinking skills to be able to navigate the pop culture environs in a healthier manner.Obviously not, since you're still demonizing yuppies, aka, people with the GALL to be young, successful, and sans kids. I'm beginning to think you hate them because the fact that they're generally happy and successful, even without kids, makes you wonder about your decision. How can they be happy if they don't make the same decisions you do, and agree with you? Insecure and fragile is no way to go through life. By the way, my son's comment on the Target ad?
"She's centered on the Target. What's the center of your body? Your groin, 'cause you have legs below, and trunk above. How ELSE do you center someone on a target? And of COURSE she's on a target, it's an ad for TARGET."
Then he asked that I not use him to test stupid, 'cause there's too much stupid out there.
No one is trying to cocoon the kids here...no one is trying to censor...we are striving to 'raise the bar' of positivity. It's really not that hard to 'get.'You say those things, but we know that by "raising the bar of positivity", you mean, "remove everything WE don't think is positive". I'm positive that I like boobies in my ads. They make me smile. Pretty women with boobies. I'll buy two of whatever they're selling.
I'm disheartened with this thread of suppositions and knee-jerk reactions, but can tell there's some intelligent life forms here, so thought I'd 'try' to engage in a mindful manner...Sadly, it's proven to be a 'time sink,' with mutual stereotyping, so I'll say 'adieu' and go back to striving for more positive tonalities in media messaging and beyond.BAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh, teh hypocrisy, it burns, it burns like hygiene! Wait, you mean you WEREN'T talking about YOUR supposition that I didn't have kids, and immediate knee-jerk reaction when you thought that the only reason I could disagree with you is that I was one of those evil knee-jerk yuppies you love to demonize? Or was it because you got busted on your assumptions, and don't even have the stones to admit it?
I'd say it's too bad you won't come back, but if the only way you are capable of "debating" is via lame assumptions and poor use of language, (THEMES...not "TONALITIES", THEMES. You want more positive THEMES in media messaging and beyond. I recommend you use your dictionary for more than a step-stool), and you insist on demonizing anyone without kids as not worthy of having an opinion, (unless of course, it agrees with yours), then honestly, go away. Your behavior would proves my point that the only "change" you're interested in is forcing the rest of us to live in your pablum fantasy.
Really, this is not a friendly place for you. I'm sure there's a "Barney" blog you can be reading instead.
Posted by:
John C. Welch |
February 7, 2008 7:47 AM
