Snickers Ad of Men Accidentally Kissing Pulled After Complaints From Gay Groups

[ParanoiA]

Ok, what about a joke making fun of a man not asking directions and getting lost because of it? That would be reinforcing the stereotype that men won't ask for directions. Whether you are offended or not, your thought processes allowed another subconscious augment to its reinforcement.

 

Is there such a thing as a joke that doesn't generalize, stereotype, exaggerate, someone, somewhere?

[Pangloss]

My housemate was watching the soap opera "Hollyoaks" earlier.

 

In the last episode, two guys kissed, and one of them "might be a bit gay".

 

In today's episode, everyone (and I mean everyone) was moping about like the world was ending, spontaneously bursting into tears, reinforcing the stereotypical view of sexual divergence being THE WORST THING THAT CAN EVER HAPPEN EVER.

 

I wish the gay lobby groups would try and get crap like that pulled, instead of wasting their time with crappy adverts that are predictable and trite.

 

I can understand your point (and Mokele's) in this area, and it even seems reasonable to me.

 

But the thing that gets me is that we spend so much time carefully culling out these dangerous things and then carefully crafting public perception on them that we don't realize that what we may actually be doing is not influencing public perception, but rather policing opinions and ideas.

 

The ironic thing here is that Mokele just got through making an argument that only paying people what their labor affords constitutes the same thing as not allowing them their freedom to live. In other words we have to set aside practical issues in favor of romantic notions. But here we're being asked to do the opposite -- to pay heed only to the real world, and not worry about silly things like freedom of speech.

 

In other words, someone might say that this "anti-gay" thing doesn't constitute a freedom of speech argument because it's not technically censorship (we're not talking about government actions, we're only talking about public actions). But at the same time we're told that we have to cross the exact same line of unrealism when it comes to paying people a "fair wage". This is a stereotypical far-left catch-22.

 

I don't care so much about this issue; in general I agree with much of what's been said here by Mokele and Sayo. What bothers me is the larger issue that's raised by the constant, never-ending social vigil of political correctness.

[ParanoiA]

In today's episode, everyone (and I mean everyone) was moping about like the world was ending, spontaneously bursting into tears, reinforcing the stereotypical view of sexual divergence being THE WORST THING THAT CAN EVER HAPPEN EVER.

 

I wish the gay lobby groups would try and get crap like that pulled, instead of wasting their time with crappy adverts that are predictable and trite.

 

I might be just repeating pangloss here, but how is that realistic at all? If people really do cry and ball about sexual divergance, then why would you advocate removing that from artistic expression?

 

Because we don't like reality, we're going to pretend as if being gay is universally accepted? Why are we all for misrepresenting the facts to keep from offending anyone?

 

I think everyone in this country needs huge doses of Mencia...

[Callipygous]

That commercial was hilarious.

 

mokele, if "manly" means being dumb enough to yank out a clump of your own chesthairs, is that really a trait you wish people would associate with homosexuality?

 

aside from all of this discussion, aside from whether it was offensive or completely innocent, aside from who it was offensive to, the commercial was hilarious and Mars needs to take some nuts out of the chocolate and keep enough of them to say so.

 

 

oh, and all the stuff about gay rights... someone needs to start reading more. Just because you and I (and probably a very large percentage of this website, given the type of people it attracts) dont care what people do in their own bedrooms, definately does not mean that most of america doesnt care. every time voting day rolls around they resoundingly declare the fact that they are so stupid and shallow that they get to dictate someone elses private life.

[ParanoiA]

every time voting day rolls around they resoundingly declare the fact that they are so stupid and shallow that they get to dictate someone elses private life.

 

Like passing laws that make it illegal to cross the street talking on your cell phone? Or outlawing transfats from privately owned restaraunts? Or forcing businesses to ban smoking on their private property?

 

yeah I know what you mean..can't get these people out of our private lives at all...

[Skye]

So you think that road regulations violate peoples private lives? While they are on... public roads?

[ParanoiA]

So you think that road regulations violate peoples private lives? While they are on... public roads?

 

Nope. Not at all.

[Callipygous]

im picking up a note of sarcasm in your post, but im not sure exactly what you mean.

[Sayonara]

all im saying is that the burden of responsibility for peoples stupidity should rest with those people. the ad was clearly not homophobic. if people interpret it as such, despite the obvious problems with such an interpretation, then that is their fault, not marses.

I have already said that I do not think any offence was caused intentionally. Bear in mind, and this is important, just because something offends a good chunk of the gay community, it does not mean that it is homophobic, or that it is accused of being homophobic.

 

Believe it or not, gay people can be offended without any special treatment

 

Let me clarify what I am arguing here: The advert was offensive, the campaigners had every right to ask for it to be pulled, and Mars did the right thing by assenting to that request.

 

The degree of humour and/or homophobic content are both red herrings.

 

 

I don't care so much about this issue; in general I agree with much of what's been said here by Mokele and Sayo. What bothers me is the larger issue that's raised by the constant, never-ending social vigil of political correctness.

The complaint does not represent political correctness, it is a valid reaction to misrepresentation.

 

I do however say that they would not have demanded the ad be pulled unless they wanted to shape the the way people think. Break it down logically, why would you not want people to see something? Plenty of reasons, which one matters in this discussion? Why does that reason matter? yea...I thought so.

Perhaps it would make more sense if you consider it the other way around.

 

The campaigners do not want to shape the way people think, so much as prevent Mars from shaping/reinforcing people's thoughts with unrealistic generalisations about sexuality.

 

Don't quite understand the democracy comment, why is that there?

I was saying "if the thought of a minority wielding any kind of social power disturbs you, maybe a democratic state is not the one for you".

 

 

I might be just repeating pangloss here, but how is that realistic at all? If people really do cry and ball about sexual divergance, then why would you advocate removing that from artistic expression?

I presume you meant "bawl"...?

 

It would be fine if it made an astute, witty, and accurate comment on sexuality. But it doesn't - it misrepresents, both gay and straight.

 

Because we don't like reality, we're going to pretend as if being gay is universally accepted? Why are we all for misrepresenting the facts to keep from offending anyone?

What are you talking about? Precisely which facts does the advert offer? Other than the yumminess of snickers, that is.

 

Nobody is saying that gayness has to be universally acceptable, or that we should pretend it is (at least, nobody who has realised what the actual issue is). They are saying that it is not acceptable to arbitrarily label gay men as "unmanly" in a Superbowl advert.

 

I think everyone in this country needs huge doses of Mencia...

Agreed, but possssssibly for different reasons. Dee dee deeeeee!

 

 

That commercial was hilarious.

Are you serious?

 

mokele, if "manly" means being dumb enough to yank out a clump of your own chesthairs, is that really a trait you wish people would associate with homosexuality?

The issue is nothing to do with chest hair. The issue is that being "manly" and being gay are not mutually exclusive.

 

aside from all of this discussion, aside from whether it was offensive or completely innocent, aside from who it was offensive to, the commercial was hilarious

You are broken. Report to the tech bay for repairs.

 

oh, and all the stuff about gay rights... someone needs to start reading more. Just because you and I (and probably a very large percentage of this website, given the type of people it attracts) dont care what people do in their own bedrooms, definately does not mean that most of america doesnt care. every time voting day rolls around they resoundingly declare the fact that they are so stupid and shallow that they get to dictate someone elses private life.

This is depressingly true. The anonymity of the voting system all too often encourages people to get their prejudices out for a bit of an air.

 

 

Like passing laws that make it illegal to cross the street talking on your cell phone? Or outlawing transfats from privately owned restaraunts? Or forcing businesses to ban smoking on their private property?

When and how you talk on your cellphone is your business, but if you do it in public in such a way that threatens the rights or safety of other people, then it is hardly "private", now is it?

 

The regulations that privately owned restaurants and businesses have to follow have nothing to do with "private lives" - I would have hoped you might know at least something about things like culpability, and endangerment law.

[the tree]

When and how you talk on your cellphone is your business, but if you do it in public in such a way that threatens the rights or safety of other people, then it is hardly "private", now is it?

 

The regulations that privately owned restaurants and businesses have to follow have nothing to do with "private lives" - I would have hoped you might know at least something about things like culpability, and endangerment law.

I'm fairly sure that was satirical, or at least hyperbole.

 

 

Let me clarify what I am arguing here: The advert was offensive, the campaigners had every right to ask for it to be pulled, and Mars did the right thing by assenting to that request.

It should have been pulled just because people were offended by it? Seriously?

Consider how many films could potentially offend some group, from Harry Potter to Enter The Dragon... would you seriously suggest every film that has ever offended anyone should be discontinued?

[Sayonara]

I'm fairly sure that was satirical, or at least hyperbole.

I'm fairly sure that the people who don't spot satire so easily will appreciate clarification of what is and is not pertinent.

 

 

It should have been pulled just because people were offended by it? Seriously?

Not just because it offended people, but because of the reasons for that offense being taken, which I seem to be having to repeat quite a lot

 

Consider how many films could potentially offend some group, from Harry Potter to Enter The Dragon... would you seriously suggest every film that has ever offended anyone should be discontinued?

No... or at least, not for the same reasons. Movie-going is by subscription. Superbowl viewers don't get to decide which adverts they will watch.

 

Naturally you have every right to complain if you don't like what a movie says about a topic, but unless it blatantly misrepresents that topic (as the advert did) you probably won't get very far.

 

Also notice that I said "Mars were right to pull the advert" (or something to that effect), and not that the advert "should have been" discontinued. The distinction is a subtle one, but it is there.

[Pangloss]

The complaint does not represent political correctness, it is a valid reaction to misrepresentation.

 

Where do you think political correctness originates? It always starts off as "valid reaction to misinterpretation", or some other such justification. But I think it's reasonable to say that sometimes the reaction is worse than the original action.

 

I don't know if you guys get Saturday Night Live over in the UK, but it's a long-running comedy series here in the US, which has been running for well over 30 years. Its roots lie at the very heart of the liberal media establishment in this country, counting amongst its alumni some of the most liberal entertainers in the business.

 

And yet they air cartoons and sketches like this, and nobody complains:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambiguously_Gay_Duo

 

Heck they're making a *live action movie* out of that one. But if you look at that Wikipedia article you won't find one iota of criticm from GLAAD or anybody else. Why not?

 

I think the problem here is not so much the joke, but from whence it came. If liberal entertainers say it, it's okay. If giant mega-corporations say it, it's bad. It's just like modern use of the "N" word -- presumption of guilt based on the origin of the utterance.

 

(Note that I'm not talking about your opinion personally, I'm talking about GLAAD, etc.)

[ParanoiA]

Well, I simply cannot disagree more. The only thing good that happened out of this incident, is no one got the government involved. So, this certainly is not a rights issue. It was fought and won fairly.

 

But I disagree with this notion that we should all be up on the latest and greatest list of offenses that people have chosen to be touchy about. I also disagree with having my comedy regulated.

 

It does appear the typical straight, white male takes a joke better than any other class. We've been made fun of by just about every black comedian since 1985. All the stereotypes included. I haven't heard any of us bitching about it yet...

 

I say quit 'yer whinin' sallies....

[Sayonara]

Where do you think political correctness originates? It always starts off as "valid reaction to misinterpretation", or some other such justification. But I think it's reasonable to say that sometimes the reaction is worse than the original action.

We may have slightly different interpretations of what "political correctness" is, which I suggest might come from cultural differences. Or the difference may be inconsequential, you decide:

 

I see political correctness as being an (often knee-jerk) pseudo-moralistic reaction to a perceived sleight on an entity which the reactor does not fully understand. Certainly I agree that political correctness is the very essence of the reaction being worse than the action.

 

However, it is not necessarily correct to say that any complaint about a minority being misrepresented is "political correctness", and indeed in this case I do not think that it is anything of the sort.

The mistake the ad company have made is one of factual error which will reflect negatively on the complainants.

 

I don't know if you guys get Saturday Night Live over in the UK, but it's a long-running comedy series here in the US, which has been running for well over 30 years.

I think we get it on some cable channel, but I can't say I have ever heard anyone talking about watching the show.

 

Its roots lie at the very heart of the liberal media establishment in this country, counting amongst its alumni some of the most liberal entertainers in the business.

And yet they air cartoons and sketches like this, and nobody complains:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambiguously_Gay_Duo

 

Heck they're making a *live action movie* out of that one. But if you look at that Wikipedia article you won't find one iota of criticm from GLAAD or anybody else. Why not?

Because this is overtly a work of character-based fiction. The snickers skit on the other hand is a marketing mechanism that aims to manipulate sexual insecurity under the guise of a poor joke, and it does so on the back of woefully flawed information that we would all be better off without, gay or straight.

 

I think the problem here is not so much the joke, but from whence it came. If liberal entertainers say it, it's okay. If giant mega-corporations say it, it's bad. It's just like modern use of the "N" word -- presumption of guilt based on the origin of the utterance.

The problem is that making the statement "if you are manly, you can't be gay" (and by inference vice versa) is offensive.

 

Personally I love Mars, and yet I seem to be quite convinced that GLAAD are in the right on this one.

 

 

But I disagree with this notion that we should all be up on the latest and greatest list of offenses that people have chosen to be touchy about. I also disagree with having my comedy regulated.

I don't think it is correct to say this is something new that has popped suddenly onto the latest "offensive" list - it's just a matter of common sense, and getting your facts right before you invest in badly devised commercials.

 

If I said to you "hey ParanoiA, why don't you run through this department store shouting 'only straight men can be manly'", I am quite sure you'd politely decline, even if there was a brewski at stake. Nobody wants to get beaten up by a massive gay man with leet kung fu skills.

[Dak]

Let me clarify what I am arguing here: The advert was offensive, the campaigners had every right to ask for it to be pulled, and Mars did the right thing by assenting to that request.

 

again, this is just one interpretation. remember that the people delivering this message are portrayed as stupid.

 

the message could easyer be 'hey, these stupid people think that pulling chest-hair out is manly, and that manlyness is mutually exclusive with homosexuality. beeeeeeeee liiiiiiiike theeeeeeeeeeeem(?)'

 

I have already said that I do not think any offence was caused intentionally. Bear in mind, and this is important, just because something offends a good chunk of the gay community, it does not mean that it is homophobic, or that it is accused of being homophobic.

 

Believe it or not, gay people can be offended without any special treatment

 

Let me clarify what I am arguing here: The advert was offensive, the campaigners had every right to ask for it to be pulled, and Mars did the right thing by assenting to that request.

 

in that case, my argument becomes 'so what?'

 

i'm sure that lots of gay people got offended at the (coincidentally pretty realistic) portrail of the responce to homosexuality. i'm sure lots of men/mechanics got offended at the insinuation that they're homophobic dumbasses. i'm sure lots of women with overly-macho husbands got pissed off by the 'reenforsement of their husbands idea that doing stupid things is required to maintain ones masculinity'. barring any malitious intent, actual homophobia, or anything really tasteless (laughing at rape victims, for example), i dont see how the complaint has any strength.

 

it'd boil down to 'i dont like this, therefore it should go away, as opposed to, say, me tolerating the ultimately harmless thing. which is what i demand of people who happen to not like the fact that i'm gay'.

 

The degree of humour and/or homophobic content are both red herrings.

 

for the record, i concider the level of both humour and homophobia to be zero.

 

however, the assumption that it could reenforse peoples homophobia seems to be your justification for gay people getting offended

 

all i'm saying is that if people are offended by the fact that this innocent advert could re-enforce people bigotry -- dispite, like i said, that this involves very selective acceptance of one slight insinuation of the advert whilst ignoring the larger 'exesive masculinity/homophobia are stupid' insinuation -- then they should be offended at, and blame, the homophobes, not mars. if that sounds stupid, then bear in mind that we're talking about an advert that can easier be interpreted as anti-homphobic than it can as homophobic.

 

this is approaching the 'ban rock music cos, to some people, theres a satanic message' crap. undoubtably, for some people, rock music leads to violence and murder, but at some point blame has to rest on the individual, not the circumstance nor whatever otherwize non-malitiouse thing that they, in their stupidity, allow to sway them to an unintended and ultimately rediculous result (hey, music tells me to kill people, i think i will = you would have anyway + u r dum; hey, these dofuses hate gays... so do i! this proves i'm right = you would think that anyway + r dum);

 

people becoming a little more set in their homophobia as a result of this advert is clearly in the 'it's the individuals fault' camp, imo. and, to clarify, along with blame i think responsability for not doing it lies with the person. to give an extreme example, if i sell toothpicks, it's other peoples responsibility not to shove them up other peoples noses, not mine to not give them the opertunity nor some kind of warped, non-intentional encoragement, that relys upon them being stupid to actually be encoragement.

 

as another example, you (flipantly, i assume, as i'm sure your more familiar with homosexuality than the quote would suggest) insinuated that bum-sex (cock in arse, i believe were your actual words) is neccesary for homosexuality.

 

now, there are enough gay people that have never taken it up the arse (same reasons that several women never do. having had an endoscopy... well, it kinda tickles, but i can see why people wouldn't like it) and who are offended at the insinuation that gay people all take it up the shitter, and the enfosement of this steryotype that your comment would have, that they could complain, using your own logic, that some people would read your comment and basically go 'hey, he's defending the gays, so he's not homophobic, and even he says they all take it up the shitter'.

 

(armchair) psycologically, allowing oneself to be analy violated is the ultimate form of self-degredation (or just some kinkey, imo, but you know what i'm getting at); so, would you retract your comment if gay people complained?

 

not to mention (again) that 'them winey fags pulled the advert 'cos it dared to lightly make fun of their pressious bum-sex rituals' is arguably more damaging that what little re-enforsement the advert would have done; and you know the kind of people who would have their homophobia re-enforsed by the ad will take that interpretation*.

 

should the gay rights group that complained be held accountable for this? or should it just be put down to some people being, ultimately, stupid and bigoted? i'd say the bigots should be blamed, but your argument seems to suggest that the gay-rights group should retract their complaint so as to not give retards the opertunity to masturbate their homophobia?

 

* hell, i thought 'whiney ****ing fags' when i heard. only slight yet significant difference being that i assume that all the fags who happen to be whiney have grouped up to form an unnessesary-complaining group, whilst homophobes will, of course, assume that all gays are whiney bitches.

 

----

 

sorry that was so long.

[ParanoiA]

I don't think it is correct to say this is something new that has popped suddenly onto the latest "offensive" list - it's just a matter of common sense, and getting your facts right before you invest in badly devised commercials.

 

No, no, that's wrong. This commercial could have easily been aired in the 80's or any time before it. It did become added to the list of stuff we're going to drain the fun out of. It's fine to make fun of this person and that person, just not this person or that person.

 

I'm just so dumbfounded about your take on this one, I just don't know where to begin. It's as if you don't read what you're really saying.

 

The snickers skit on the other hand is a marketing mechanism that aims to manipulate sexual insecurity under the guise of a poor joke, and it does so on the back of woefully flawed information that we would all be better off without, gay or straight.

 

Are you serious? You do realize you've basically analyzed this joke like a psych patient on the proverbial couch, right? You've added in all of this homo baggage to a joke we've basically been telling in hundreds of forms for...well hundreds of years. Yes, we have inaccurately stereotyped them (although I'll take issue with its inaccuracy some other time), white guys have been inaccurately stereotyped - that's what comedy is.

 

A joke is basically a teaspoon of truth mixed with a gallon of exaggeration. There is a teaspoon of truth in the gay versus manly thing, and that's all there needs to be.

 

I still believe it's their problem, not ours, nor Mars. Their conscience is telling them something. They're not ready to be openly gay. If they're not hiding themselves from it, they're defining themselves by it. Neither is particularly healthy, pick your category of human and take the shit that goes with it - nobody gets off the comedic hook on this globe.

[Sayonara]

again, this is just one interpretation. remember that the people delivering this message are portrayed as stupid.

Whether or not the campaigners have provided an "interpretation" is beside the point - they are offended. Continue reading before leaping to conclusions about what I mean here.

 

the message could easyer be 'hey, these stupid people think that pulling chest-hair out is manly, and that manlyness is mutually exclusive with homosexuality. beeeeeeeee liiiiiiiike theeeeeeeeeeeem(?)'

Yes, it could easily be that, but some people didn't see it that way. The door swings both ways.

Even so, if that was the meaning of the message, it still delivers the unintentional message that gays are not manly.

 

I'm sure that lots of gay people got offended at the (coincidentally pretty realistic) portrail of the responce to homosexuality. i'm sure lots of men/mechanics got offended at the insinuation that they're homophobic dumbasses. i'm sure lots of women with overly-macho husbands got pissed off by the 'reenforsement of their husbands idea that doing stupid things is required to maintain ones masculinity'. barring any malitious intent, actual homophobia, or anything really tasteless (laughing at rape victims, for example), i dont see how the complaint has any strength.

The complaint doesn't need to "have strength". It's not like the GLAAD were pursuing this in court, is it? They made their feelings known to Mars, who reacted in a constructive and sympathetic manner and stopped running the advert.

 

it'd boil down to 'i dont like this, therefore it should go away, as opposed to, say, me tolerating the ultimately harmless thing. which is what i demand of people who happen to not like the fact that i'm gay'.

You seem to be making the case here that nobody should have the right to complain that something offends them.

 

however, the assumption that it could reenforse peoples homophobia seems to be your justification for gay people getting offended

Actually, it was the affirmation of incorrect information that I was talking about, not homophobia.

 

all i'm saying is that if people are offended by the fact that this innocent advert could re-enforce people bigotry -- dispite, like i said, that this involves very selective acceptance of one slight insinuation of the advert whilst ignoring the larger 'exesive masculinity/homophobia are stupid' insinuation

As I have already said, the message that gays cannot be manly is not an "insinuation", it is the core of the joke. It cannot be escaped. This may not have been the overall message the advert was supposed to convey (or, indeed, the message that it does convey in many cases), but it is still there.

 

-- then they should be offended at, and blame, the homophobes,

They are GLAAD, so I think we can take it as read that they do this.

 

not mars.

They are not camped outside singing "death to Mars, how dare they!"

 

They told Mars how they felt, that was it. I don't know what your understanding of "complaint" is but it seems to be much more combative than mine.

 

this is approaching the 'ban rock music cos, to some people, theres a satanic message' crap.

It really isn't.

 

It is approaching "if people don't like rock music they have as much right to make a complaint to the production company as GLAAD has to complain to Mars, and the outcome will depend on the specifics and merits of the complaint, and not on a quick glance around to see else who is ignoring whiney minorities this week".

 

You appear to be of the view that if group x choose not to complain about irritation y, then group p should not be allowed to complain about irritation q.

 

 

people becoming a little more set in their homophobia as a result of this advert is clearly in the 'it's the individuals fault' camp, imo. and, to clarify, along with blame i think responsability for not doing it lies with the person.

This is all very well, but you can't reasonably expect action groups to sit on their hands saying "wait for it lads, instead of cutting this off at the source we'll wait for street beatings to go up a notch, and then ooooh what a tongue lashing the liberal media will give those gay bashers."

 

to give an extreme example, if i sell toothpicks, it's other peoples responsibility not to shove them up other peoples noses, not mine to not give them the opertunity nor some kind of warped, non-intentional encoragement, that relys upon them being stupid to actually be encoragement.

Mars are not selling information about sexuality. They are selling chocolate bars, and misrepresenting sexuality as a means of making that sale.

 

Your analogy does not work. And even if it did, you would need to change it in some way so that you were misrepresenting a 3rd party to your customers.

 

as another example, you (flipantly, i assume, as i'm sure your more familiar with homosexuality than the quote would suggest) insinuated that bum-sex (cock in arse, i believe were your actual words) is neccesary for homosexuality.

Actually my words were "cock and arse are standard fare", which doesn't say anything about the relative positions of said cock and arse. It could mean anything from mutual masturbation and rimming to frottage and fisting, none of which have much at all to do with bum love.

 

My actual point was that kissing a man does not make you gay. The flippant (perfectly accurate adjective I think) reference to a strong iconic was intended to highlight the differentiation.

 

now, there are enough gay people that have never taken it up the arse (same reasons that several women never do. having had an endoscopy... well, it kinda tickles, but i can see why people wouldn't like it)

I imagine endoscopes are a lot colder than willies, but y'know... whatever floats your boat

 

and who are offended at the insinuation that gay people all take it up the shitter, and the enfosement of this steryotype that your comment would have, that they could complain, using your own logic, that some people would read your comment and basically go 'hey, he's defending the gays, so he's not homophobic, and even he says they all take it up the shitter'.

Where this approach falls down is that if anyone says to me "I found that offensive", or "I found that misleading and misrepresentative", I would happily explain my position further (as above), or retract it if I thought such a step to be necessary.

 

Like Mars did.

 

That's not because of any weird political pressure, or not wishing to offend minorities, or wanting to be "politically correct" (vomit). It's because it is the proper, right, and reasonable thing to do.

 

Assuming I was selling snickers, I am sure there are myriad other avenues open for me to explore which could lead to advertising without avoidable offense.

 

(armchair) psycologically, allowing oneself to be analy violated is the ultimate form of self-degredation (or just some kinkey, imo, but you know what i'm getting at); so, would you retract your comment if gay people complained?

See above.

Your interpretation of my comment is incorrect (mainly because you did not check the wording I suspect, but top marks for remembering I said it!), but in the context of this discussion I think that actually "works" with the debate, if you see what I mean.

 

not to mention (again) that 'them winey fags pulled the advert 'cos it dared to lightly make fun of their pressious bum-sex rituals' is arguably more damaging that what little re-enforsement the advert would have done; and you know the kind of people who would have their homophobia re-enforsed by the ad will take that interpretation*.

Nobody "pulled" the advert except for Mars, and they only "pulled" it in the sense that they stopped showing it (or rather they instructed whoever showed it on their behalf to stop).

 

The word "pulled" implies some force was applied, which is not really the case at all. The headlines seeded that word! It's all the media's fault!

 

should the gay rights group that complained be held accountable for this? or should it just be put down to some people being, ultimately, stupid and bigoted? i'd say the bigots should be blamed, but your argument seems to suggest that the gay-rights group should retract their complaint so as to not give retards the opertunity to masturbate their homophobia?

No, that would be the horrifying spectre of what you have turned my argument into through bizarre extensions and tenuous comparisons.

 

 

hell, i thought 'whiney ****ing fags' when i heard. only slight yet significant difference being that i assume that all the fags who happen to be whiney have grouped up to form an unnessesary-complaining group, whilst homophobes will, of course, assume that all gays are whiney bitches.

I think the nub of your reasoning is found here. "Unnecessary"? To you maybe.

 

sorry that was so long.

I am tired. Please be nice. Post short things

[Sayonara]

No, no, that's wrong. This commercial could have easily been aired in the 80's or any time before it. It did become added to the list of stuff we're going to drain the fun out of. It's fine to make fun of this person and that person, just not this person or that person.

We will have to simply disagree on that one.

 

I'm just so dumbfounded about your take on this one, I just don't know where to begin. It's as if you don't read what you're really saying.

You don't understand how I can say that people should have the right to complain when they are offended, without being verbally molested?

 

It's as if you don't read what I am really saying, ParanoiA.

One might even think this is actually the more rational deduction.

 

 

Are you serious? You do realize you've basically analyzed this joke like a psych patient on the proverbial couch, right? You've added in all of this homo baggage to a joke we've basically been telling in hundreds of forms for...well hundreds of years. Yes, we have inaccurately stereotyped them (although I'll take issue with its inaccuracy some other time), white guys have been inaccurately stereotyped - that's what comedy is.

I have not analysed the joke, nor have I added anything in. Neither are necessary.

 

The fulcrum of the joke is that only straight men are manly.

 

A joke is basically a teaspoon of truth mixed with a gallon of exaggeration. There is a teaspoon of truth in the gay versus manly thing, and that's all there needs to be.

Given that the punchline of the joke is an unnatural product of that "truth", rather than the "truth" itself, "it was a joke" is the second lamest defense possible next to "I was only following orders"

 

I can point you in the direction of an ex-administrator of this site if you would like to learn more about that horrible apologetic.

 

I think, also, that it is dishonest to claim that the only reason gay people complain now about these various effronteries is due to the effronteries themselves being magically added onto this "list" that nobody has ever written or received. Hmm, could it be more to do with a gradual change in society which has made it less acceptable - over time - to censure and murder people because of their sexuality? Well hold the ****ing press if some people haven't got their sense of humour back yet.

 

I still believe it's their problem, not ours, nor Mars.

Sure, granted, okay, could not agree more.

But that doesn't prevent them from talking to Mars, does it?

 

Their conscience is telling them something. They're not ready to be openly gay.

Yes, because going to work for a high-profile gay rights action group and getting yourself plastered all over the media is a really good way for the sexually insecure to avoid facing themselves, isn't it?

 

If they're not hiding themselves from it, they're defining themselves by it. Neither is particularly healthy, pick your category of human and take the shit that goes with it - nobody gets off the comedic hook on this globe.

For the last time: if anyone had any complaint about the joke itself, it was that it was just not funny.

 

I am quite sure the fag and queen jokes that the GLAAD members tell each other are hysterical.

[Sayonara]

Hurry up Dak, I wants me bed

 

Is there such a thing as a joke that doesn't generalize, stereotype, exaggerate, someone, somewhere?

 

There are 10 kinds of people...

[Dak]

alright, chill

 

i was trying to get my punctuation and grama up to tolerable levels, to counterbalance my spelling.

 

see, i do make an effort. i just know a dead horse when i see one.

 

Whether or not the campaigners have provided an "interpretation" is beside the point - they are offended. Continue reading before leaping to conclusions about what I mean here.

 

but if they're interpretation is incorrect and unjustified (which i'm arguing it is), their complaint is unjustified.

 

Yes, it could easily be that, but some people didn't see it that way. The door swings both ways.

Even so, if that was the meaning of the message, it still delivers the unintentional message that gays are not manly.

 

they are ideots. they are the butt of the joke. they are saying that homosexuality is not manly, and they are demonstrating manlyness by pulling out chest hair.

 

to interpret this as 'gays are not manly' would be to accept that buffoons are advertisers charector-type of choice for dispensing truths, and to interpret manlyness as good would require that you accept that random acts of self-masochism are good.

 

associating the adherence to the incorect truths which you argue this advert could be persieved as supoorting with imbecils is really not suporting said thingys.

 

which is why i feel you'd have to be dumb to honestly interpret it thusly.

 

 

The complaint doesn't need to "have strength". It's not like the GLAAD were pursuing this in court, is it? They made their feelings known to Mars, who reacted in a constructive and sympathetic manner and stopped running the advert.

 

it needs a teensy little bit to stop them from being whingey bastards who complain for no reason, and who thusly should be ignored imo

 

You seem to be making the case here that nobody should have the right to complain that something offends them.

 

if it just offends them, for no good reason, which i feel is the case here.

 

Actually, it was the affirmation of incorrect information that I was talking about, not homophobia.

 

see above: the affirmation is being done by buffoons. they are, if anything, ridiculing the incorrect infomation.

 

the bit that started at the top of this page made me think that it was the re-enforsing effect on homophobes that you were worried about. probably jumping from 'prejudiced' and 'bigoted' to 'homophobic'.

 

As I have already said, the message that gays cannot be manly is not an "insinuation", it is the core of the joke. It cannot be escaped. This may not have been the overall message the advert was supposed to convey (or, indeed, the message that it does convey in many cases), but it is still there.

 

as a point of ridicule. insinuating, if anything, that its not true in the advertisers opinion.

 

They are not camped outside singing "death to Mars, how dare they!"

 

They told Mars how they felt, that was it. I don't know what your understanding of "complaint" is but it seems to be much more combative than mine.

 

the intent of complaining to an advertiser is to stop advertising, either the one being complained about, or similar ones in the future.

 

unles they were complaining for the sake of having something to do?

 

 

It really isn't.

 

It is approaching "if people don't like rock music they have as much right to make a complaint to the production company as GLAAD has to complain to Mars, and the outcome will depend on the specifics and merits of the complaint, and not on a quick glance around to see else who is ignoring whiney minorities this week".

 

You appear to be of the view that if group x choose not to complain about irritation y, then group p should not be allowed to complain about irritation q.

 

no. merely that both group x and p should actually have a valid reason to complain, that doesnt rely upon someones stupidity (which it would require to view this advert as suporting the claim it throws ridicule on), or should be ignored.

 

This is all very well, but you can't reasonably expect action groups to sit on their hands saying "wait for it lads, instead of cutting this off at the source we'll wait for street beatings to go up a notch, and then ooooh what a tongue lashing the liberal media will give those gay bashers."

 

or the beaters could get arrested. and actual homophobia could be stoped.

 

the world would have to be too sanitised to completely cut of 'the source', if people are going to be this unfussy about wether 'the source' supports or ridicules their homophobia (which you are clearly citing here), and as i said the sanitation creates an unfriendly atmosphere itself -- we're winey bitches, and thout shal not mock the mighty queers, 'cos we dont like you enough to let you.

 

Your analogy does not work. And even if it did, you would need to change it in some way so that you were misrepresenting a 3rd party to your customers.

 

my analogy was intended to demonstrait that, at some point, if i am tangently involved in someone hurting someone else, this is not my fault, if the hurters stupidity played a large role.

 

Actually my words were "cock and arse are standard fare", which doesn't say anything about the relative positions of said cock and arse. It could mean anything from mutual masturbation and rimming to frottage and fisting, none of which have much at all to do with bum love.

 

but obviously inmplies anal penetration, wether you meant it to or not.

 

I imagine endoscopes are a lot colder than willies, but y'know... whatever floats your boat

 

it was quite cool. the light on the end was so powerful i could see it through my abdomen.

 

 

Where this approach falls down is that if anyone says to me "I found that offensive", or "I found that misleading and misrepresentative", I would happily explain my position further (as above), or retract it if I thought such a step to be necessary.

 

Like Mars did.

 

That's not because of any weird political pressure, or not wishing to offend minorities, or wanting to be "politically correct" (vomit). It's because it is the proper, right, and reasonable thing to do.

 

Assuming I was selling snickers, I am sure there are myriad other avenues open for me to explore which could lead to advertising without avoidable offense.

 

again, tho, it's the unjustifyability and the insinuation that homosexuality should be comedically off-limits.

 

if someones going to complain, then i think they have to tolerate some slight slights before complaining, otherwize it's all 'me, me, me, nothing can offend me'.

 

Your interpretation of my comment is incorrect (mainly because you did not check the wording I suspect, but top marks for remembering I said it!), but in the context of this discussion I think that actually "works" with the debate, if you see what I mean.

 

that might be because that was my intent.

 

i took a bearly justifyable, but ultimately rediculous, interpretation of your statement and complained on behalf of gays that said interpretation was offensive.

 

i feel this makes up for the toothpicks

 

Nobody "pulled" the advert except for Mars, and they only "pulled" it in the sense that they stopped showing it (or rather they instructed whoever showed it on their behalf to stop).

 

The word "pulled" implies some force was applied, which is not really the case at all. The headlines seeded that word! It's all the media's fault!

 

heh.

 

i think it's a bit naiive to assume that there was no intent on behalf of the complainers to affect a change in advertising habbits, including but not limited to pulling the advert, when they complained.

 

unless the complaint went "we dont like this, but we dont mind if you carry on doing it. just so you know how tolerant we are"

 

I am tired. Please be nice. Post short things

 

worms.

[Callipygous]

Are you serious?

 

absolutely. very few commercials make me actually laugh out loud, this one did.

 

 

The issue is nothing to do with chest hair. The issue is that being "manly" and being gay are not mutually exclusive.

 

the commercial has nothing to do with them being mutually exclusive. the commercial has to do with two insecure men, who display their insecurity in a thoroughly amusing way.

 

You are broken. Report to the tech bay for repairs.

 

it was a summary, the repetition was intentional. and yes, when you cut off half of my sentence it makes it look even more like a broken record. thanks for catching that and sharing it with us.

 

it was a joke, and as such i dont care how off color it was, or whether someone found it offensive, i only care that it entertained me. if you paid any attention to it at all youd realize that the people who come out looking bad are the two morons ripping out their own chest hair, not gay people. if you cant see the humor in something just becuase you manage to find an unintended insult in it you need to grow up.

[Callipygous]

Hurry up Dak, I wants me bed

 

 

 

There are 10 kinds of people...

 

ok... is there any such thing as a funny, not mildly amusing, joke that doesnt stereotype?

[Sayonara]

alright, chill

Nyaaah

 

I am off to bed in a sec, so don't expect further replies tonight! Or tomorrow - Japanese class, yay \o/

 

but if they're interpretation is incorrect and unjustified (which i'm arguing it is), their complaint is unjustified.

Having re-read the thread while I was waiting I think I should clarify that not only do GLAAD find the "gays can't be manly" bit offensive, but it is an affront that a company like mars should pass this message along to people who are not sufficiently perceptive as yourself to reach your interpretation (i.e. that the advert mocks homophobia, as you put it).

 

Considering the number of freaking retards out there with nothing better to do than watch football and throw peanuts at each other all day, you have to admit, even if you don't sympathize with their position, they have a bit of a point there.

 

I will say to you what I say to everyone else making this "I don't accept it" argument: one day it will be your turn.

 

advertisers charector-type of choice for dispensing truths, and to interpret manlyness as good would require that you accept that random acts of self-masochism are good.

Because that's never happened before, oh no.

 

associating the adherence to the incorect truths which you argue this advert could be persieved as supoorting with imbecils is really not suporting said thingys.

which is why i feel you'd have to be dumb to honestly interpret it thusly.

But it's not just the perceived message that offends - it's the sure knowledge of what that message can do.

 

Perhaps you do not see it so easily because it is unlikely to adversely affect you, I don't really know. But I am quite sure that you are putting a lot more effort into rejecting this complaint than is strictly necessary for someone who has not really been affected.

 

(And that's not a circuitous way of calling you gay; I am just a bit confused as to why you care so much in the first place.)

 

it needs a teensy little bit to stop them from being whingey bastards who complain for no reason, and who thusly should be ignored imo

"imo" doesn't really qualify anything when you have already flatly rejected the major basis of the complaint. Put simply, I disagree, as you can see from all the preceding posts.

 

the bit that started at the top of this page made me think that it was the re-enforsing effect on homophobes that you were worried about. probably jumping from 'prejudiced' and 'bigoted' to 'homophobic'.

We appear to have different "posts per page" settings. Which post number was it?

 

as a point of ridicule. insinuating, if anything, that its not true in the advertisers opinion.

I think it is quite clear from the content of the advert that its producers did not think about it anywhere near that much.

 

And if they had, and it's just devilishly clever, they would surely have defended it, rather than pulling it on the orders of "whingey bastards who complain for no reason", don't you think?

 

the intent of complaining to an advertiser is to stop advertising, either the one being complained about, or similar ones in the future.

unles they were complaining for the sake of having something to do?

The intention of their complaint could, theoretically, have been anything from registering their mild disgruntlement, to issuing a declaration of war. I don't think it is helpful to pick an arbitrary level of dissatisfaction that best supports the idea that force was used or threatened. Keep in mind that pressure groups don't actually have magical enforcement beams that shoot out of their eyes.

 

 

no. merely that both group x and p should actually have a valid reason to complain, that doesnt rely upon someones stupidity (which it would require to view this advert as suporting the claim it throws ridicule on), or should be ignored.

As before, this is all pre-subjected to your rejection, so you aren't really refuting it.

 

for the beaters could get arrested.

I think you might find that people don't actually like being hospitalised before anything gets done.

 

Even assuming, of course, a 100% capture and conviction rate for gay bashers, which frankly is laughably unlikely, in any country.

 

and actual homophobia could be stoped.

I find it hard to believe you can be this optimistic, given your other views. What exactly do you think happens to people who are convicted for assaults motivated by sexuality?

 

the world would have to be too sanitised to completely cut of 'the source', if people are going to be this unfussy about wether 'the source' supports or ridicules their homophobia (which you are clearly citing here), and as i said the sanitation creates an unfriendly atmosphere itself --

It's not about "sanitation" in the sense that you say it. If you are going to use the slippery slope fallacy, then explain why the regulation of television is wrong, and explain why businesses should just stop caring about quality assurance, and working with communities, and not alienating their customers.

 

we're winey bitches, and thout shal not mock the mighty queers, 'cos we dont like you enough to let you.

Strawman. The issue is not that "queers" are being mocked. It is that (a) they are misrepresented (whether this was during the process of mocking them, or mocking your "dumb straight men" - the result is the same), and (b) this could have further consequences for them.

 

my analogy was intended to demonstrait that, at some point, if i am tangently involved in someone hurting someone else, this is not my fault, if the hurters stupidity played a large role.

Abdication of responsibility for being a trigger - reallllly hard to pull off in court.

 

but obviously inmplies anal penetration, wether you meant it to or not.

No, you simply infer that because you are not familiar with the other possible meanings.

 

Ironically, your "tangential involvement" argument actually works for me here.

 

 

it was quite cool. the light on the end was so powerful i could see it through my abdomen.

Could you see any moving, squishing bits?

 

 

again, tho, it's the unjustifyability and the insinuation that homosexuality should be comedically off-limits.

Nowhere have I made that proposal.

 

If anyone (and especially ParanoiA) thinks that GLAAD are moaning because someone made fun of them, then you do not understand the issue that they have with this advert. I'm sorry; it's that simple.

 

if someones going to complain, then i think they have to tolerate some slight slights before complaining, otherwize it's all 'me, me, me, nothing can offend me'.

And you don't see the irony of using your right to complain to dictate to people how they should carry out their own complaints, despite the fact that their complaints haven't affected you in any quantifiable way?

 

that might be because that was my intent.

i took a bearly justifyable, but ultimately rediculous, interpretation of your statement and complained on behalf of gays that said interpretation was offensive.

i feel this makes up for the toothpicks

Well I can see where you wanted to go with it, of course. It was a brave strategy, but I would have to be completely inconsistent in my values for it to have worked (maybe not so bad as hypocritical, but you know - one rule for them, another for me, or something).

 

i think it's a bit naiive to assume that there was no intent on behalf of the complainers to affect a change in advertising habbits, including but not limited to pulling the advert, when they complained.

I am sure their optimum outcome was for the advert to stop running, yes, but we can't just make up how far we think they would have gone if Mars said "no" in the first instance.

And if we do take a massive liberty, and simply make that up, drawing value judgments against GLAAD on that basis would be unforgivable.

 

Believe me, I am not naive enough to believe that GLAAD have no interest in how this will affect future advertising decisions. But consider the consistency of my case! As far as I am concerned, they have as much right as anyone else to take an active interest in what is shown on television, to object as they see fit, and to make their voices heard. The US is a democracy, after all.

 

For these reasons such considerations do not trouble me.

 

unless the complaint went "we dont like this, but we dont mind if you carry on doing it. just so you know how tolerant we are"

That happens all the time; it is simply not news-worthy enough for us to hear about it.

 

 

absolutely. very few commercials make me actually laugh out loud, this one did.

You know I am perfectly aware of the subjectivity of our sense of humour, right? I am not trying to make out you are a mentalist or anything. I am just surprised that you found it that funny.

 

the commercial has nothing to do with them being mutually exclusive. the commercial has to do with two insecure men, who display their insecurity in a thoroughly amusing way.

And yet it Still. Offended. People.

 

Obviously the most logical explanation is that a whole bunch of people, who all just happen to fall into the same social group, decided to make up some phantom objection and cause a bit of a stir at their own expense, rather than the nonsensical madman idea that Mars may have fumbled the ball a bit.

 

it was a summary, the repetition was intentional. and yes, when you cut off half of my sentence it makes it look even more like a broken record. thanks for catching that and sharing it with us.

I was just trying to have a joke with you, strangely enough.

 

it was a joke, and as such i dont care how off color it was, or whether someone found it offensive, i only care that it entertained me.

If all you really care about are your own self-contained interests then I don't see what right you have to crap on other people's distress.

 

if you paid any attention to it at all youd realize that the people who come out looking bad are the two morons ripping out their own chest hair, not gay people.

The fact that the morons in the advert come out looking bad does not magically remove any other effects the advert might have on people.

 

if you cant see the humor in something just becuase you manage to find an unintended insult in it you need to grow up.

The insult had nothing to do with it.

 

I didn't find it funny because - low and behold - it was not the kind of material I find amusing. Base prejudice and irrational self-mutilation don't hit my funny bone. Certainly I can see how other people might be amused, but I am not them. In fact, if anything, one might make the argument that I need to "lighten up", not "grow up".

 

In actual fact it was not until I came back from the video, read the thread, and had thought about it for a bit during dinner, that I came to understand where the source of the problem lay. See, I actually think about things before I post.

 

Well, mostly. Okay "sometimes".

 

 

ok... is there any such thing as a funny, not mildly amusing, joke that doesnt stereotype?

That is the best joke in the universe and you KNOW IT, Mr Goalpost-Shifter.

[Sayonara]

(I am going to bed right after this post, you just wait and see)

 

In case anyone did not catch this:

 

it was a summary' date=' the repetition was intentional. and yes, when you cut off half of my sentence it makes it look even more like a broken record. thanks for catching that and sharing it with us.[/quote']

I was just trying to have a joke with you, strangely enough.

In this thread, I am now Mars, and Cal is now GLAAD.

 

Let's see what happens.

[Saryctos]

(I am going to bed right after this post, you just wait and see)

 

In case anyone did not catch this:

 

 

In this thread, I am now Mars, and Cal is now GLAAD.

 

Let's see what happens.

 

But has he asked you to remove it from the forums? Quite a difference between realizing a joke has been made at your expense than QQing about it.