Racist anti-white male TV ads

[Dr.Who]

Wow. You people really just don't get it.

This is a reversal of the old racist trends in advertising which were astounding virulent. For instance, in the 1920s over half the portrayals of black men in advertising were specifically designed to show them as servants. Newer trends that depict black people in a more empowered light are meant to reverse that old trend, to show audiences that black people can and have branched out into what society considers more "elevated" roles.

Here's a highly educational slideshow on the subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/2164062/slideshow/2164626/fs/0//entry/2164627/

I doubt any of us would object to showing black people in an empowered light. But there is no need to show white people in a negative light to do so. Get it?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

oddly I don't wake up daily and tear up for the plight of the lowly white male in America. O woh is me, the horrer of being a white male, its soooo hard.

 

[Libsmasher]

oddly I don't wake up daily and tear up for the plight of the lowly white male in America. O woh is me, the horrer of being a white male, its soooo hard.

That's the lib attitude - because white males aren't in slavery or anything, what's wrong with some screwing them over?

- creates tension between the races
- makes a mockery of the equal protection clause
- overturns the rule of law
- creates a thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand injustices a day

Ah, but it doesn't reach the level of "horrible", so it's OK.

 

[Libsmasher]

I doubt any of us would object to showing black people in an empowered light. But there is no need to show white people in a negative light to do so. Get it?

Right, and the "empowered black" idea is a distortion. There are black portrayals in that regard, and they probably make many people giggle. Eg, you may have noticed that when a judge is portrayed, it's almost always a black (sometimes a white female). Then one is thinking sure, lots of Obama types cruise through on "affirmative action", but from the portrayals you'd think law schools were black ghettos. The ham-handed pandering to blacks ends up being amusing, rather than "empowering".

But that is trivial in amount when it comes to the wholesale ridicule heaped on white males. In the last several years, during the time I've noticed it, I've seen hundreds of examples of this stuff. There are other wrinkles to this, like the way they like to pair off black males and white females, a kind of subtle desexualization of white males.

 

[vyo476]

- creates tension between the races

No, it creates insolent whiners like yourself. I'm white and I've got no problem with any of the ads you mentioned. There are just as many that portray white people in a positive light.

- makes a mockery of the equal protection clause

Isn't that clause about equal protection under the law? How is the legal system involved in advertising?

- overturns the rule of law

So now we begin to see that tin-foil hats come in the pointy-white variety.

- creates a thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand injustices a day

And what do these "injustices" do to you, exactly? Does the idea of the portrayal of a group of out-of-touch old white businessman offend your sense of the "trials and tribulations" that white people have historically had to deal with (you know, the part where white people have never been specifically targeted for discrimination)? Does it remind you of how you're far less likely to succeed here in America simply because of the color of your skin? Are these "injustices" at all or are you just looking for something to be upset about?

 

[vyo476]

Right, and the "empowered black" idea is a distortion. There are black portrayals in that regard, and they probably make many people giggle. Eg, you may have noticed that when a judge is portrayed, it's almost always a black (sometimes a white female). Then one is thinking sure, lots of Obama types cruise through on "affirmative action", but from the portrayals you'd think law schools were black ghettos. The ham-handed pandering to blacks ends up being amusing, rather than "empowering".

Every time an advertisement shows a black person in a successful role, it is an individual example of empowerment. It isn't as though people sit down specifically to watch all the ads that cater to minorities in order to feel good about themselves.

But that is trivial in amount when it comes to the wholesale ridicule heaped on white males. In the last several years, during the time I've noticed it, I've seen hundreds of examples of this stuff. There are other wrinkles to this, like the way they like to pair off black males and white females, a kind of subtle desexualization of white males.

So let's get this straight. You see that attempts to empower blacks through portrayals of successful African Americans aren't in line with how things fall socio-economically and find it funny, but when you see ridicule of white males who need no help socio-economically, suddenly it's this huge tragedy?

A lot of advertising is about casting people in a bad light. Sometimes it's humorous, sometimes it's serious, etc. What you may have noticed is that presently advertising does not cast African Americans in a bad light - doing that is linked to our country's sad history of racist advertising (which I've already linked you to - did you read it?). So yeah, white guys tend to get shown in a bad light. White guys also get shown in a good light in advertising, even more so than black guys. Why is that? Because the old cultural stereotype, that white is better, still exists, and advertising companies go where the money is. Sure, they'll play around with the empowerment stuff I've been talking about, because that's popular on an intellectual level - but on the gut level, where most Americans spend their time, the idea of white superiority endures, even if it isn't explicitly stated.

Just looking at some of the things you've said it's pretty clear that you, at least, still hold that belief. Take the "you'd think law schools were black ghettos" crack above. Your subject was the overemphasized portrayal of blacks as judges. Being a judge is a largely respected role in society, and most of these portrayals are of African Americans who are quite respectable by society's standards. The implication you've made is that in order for all those black judges to be getting where they're portrayed to be, law schools would have to be full of black people - yet, despite these being portrayals being of socially-acceptable African Americans (people who, you would assume, must have made decent students) you still feel the need to add in the extremely negative phrase "ghettos." The implication is clear - you believe that all blacks, even the ones who we see in idealized roles in advertising, must come from negative backgrounds. Well done.

 

[Libsmasher]

No, it creates insolent whiners like yourself.

In a society where the slighest whiff of anything negative about blacks brings out the self-righteous PC Marines, and white males are dumped on relentlessly by the lib media, how does your statement come off? Assinine.

I'm white and I've got no problem with any of the ads you mentioned.

White uncle toms exist - duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

There are just as many that portray white people in a positive light.

Absolutely absurd.

Isn't that clause about equal protection under the law? How is the legal system involved in advertising?

The thread broadened from just advertising - try to keep up Steel Trap Brain.

So now we begin to see that tin-foil hats come in the pointy-white variety.

So you're afraid to debate the issue - with your mentality, that's understandable.

And what do these "injustices" do to you, exactly?

What does it do to ANYONE when they are insulted and ridiculed as a group, exactly?

Does the idea of the portrayal of a group of out-of-touch old white businessman offend your sense of the "trials and tribulations" that white people have historically had to deal with (you know, the part where white people have never been specifically targeted for discrimination)?

Another totally dumbass statement - eg ever hear of the Irish Holocaust? When my irish great-grandfather went to union hiring halls, he saw signs that said "NINA" in the window - know what that means? But SCREW "history", I'm talking about NOW. Really, if you can't keep your mind on the thread topic, get the hell out, OK? Good boy.

Does it remind you of how you're far less likely to succeed here in America simply because of the color of your skin?

No, it reminds me of the slimy self-hating masochistic white libs who create such garbage.

Are these "injustices" at all or are you just looking for something to be upset about?

No, I'm just trying to see how many jackass comments I can get from white uncle toms.

 

[Libsmasher]

Every time an advertisement shows a black person in a successful role, it is an individual example of empowerment. It isn't as though people sit down specifically to watch all the ads that cater to minorities in order to feel good about themselves.

Incoherent.

So let's get this straight. You see that attempts to empower blacks through portrayals of successful African Americans aren't in line with how things fall socio-economically and find it funny, but when you see ridicule of white males who need no help socio-economically, suddenly it's this huge tragedy?

One is a ridiculous distortion of reality, like most things from libs connected with race, a sort of misplaced pep talk to blacks, and the other is sneering racism against the last racial/gender group in this PC society for which such affronts are completely OK. It's really not quantum mechanics - what part don't you get??

A lot of advertising is about casting people in a bad light

.

Absolutely correct - a ridiculous shtick they repeat over and over.

Sometimes it's humorous, sometimes it's serious, etc. What you may have noticed is that presently advertising does not cast African Americans in a bad light - doing that is linked to our country's sad history of racist advertising (which I've already linked you to - did you read it?).

Oh, I get you - it used to be racist one way, so now it should be racist the OTHER way? "Great" logic.

So yeah, white guys tend to get shown in a bad light. White guys also get shown in a good light in advertising, even more so than black guys. Why is that? Because the old cultural stereotype, that white is better, still exists, and advertising companies go where the money is. Sure, they'll play around with the empowerment stuff I've been talking about, because that's popular on an intellectual level - but on the gut level, where most Americans spend their time, the idea of white superiority endures, even if it isn't explicitly stated.

A complete distortion of the truth. White males are RELENTLESSY portrayed negatively vis a vis minorities in video ads, in print ads, in TV shows, in the movies.

Just looking at some of the things you've said it's pretty clear that you, at least, still hold that belief.

You are the one supporting racism, and now you try to duck out of it by imagining something about me - won't work - stay on topic and continue to defend racism.

Take the "you'd think law schools were black ghettos" crack above. Your subject was the overemphasized portrayal of blacks as judges. Being a judge is a largely respected role in society, and most of these portrayals are of African Americans who are quite respectable by society's standards. The implication you've made is that in order for all those black judges to be getting where they're portrayed to be, law schools would have to be full of black people - yet, despite these being portrayals being of socially-acceptable African Americans (people who, you would assume, must have made decent students) you still feel the need to add in the extremely negative phrase "ghettos."

No - the implication was that in order to provide all the blacks shown on TV as judges, they'd have to empty out the ghettoes to get enough people. YOU are the one defending racism.

 

[W8NontheWrld2Change]

Um, I'm actually a Liberal and I don't have a hair trigger response to anything, but if I did, it would most certainly be racism for ALL races, not just minority races. Discrimination has no place in today's society. People can either accept that or keep their bigoted opinions to themselves!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

That's the lib attitude - because white males aren't in slavery or anything, what's wrong with some screwing them over?

- creates tension between the races
- makes a mockery of the equal protection clause
- overturns the rule of law
- creates a thousand or ten thousand or a hundred thousand injustices a day

Ah, but it doesn't reach the level of "horrible", so it's OK.

I am sorry, maybe I should ask you when I should be offended. I should cry when I head Drunken Irish jokes as well. Grow a pair and got on with your life. Since when was it a conservative thing to cry that your offended by everything?
Its a damn ad for a lame bank or something, really get over it.
Also you know the top of all those banks , CEO's CFO' ect...most likey White Snow.

 

[vyo476]

In a society where the slighest whiff of anything negative about blacks brings out the self-righteous PC Marines, and white males are dumped on relentlessly by the lib media, how does your statement come off? Assinine.

Those negative statements about African Americans are symbols and reminders of the oppression visited upon them as a group. White people are not dumped on for being white - they're just being dumped on, and it really isn't a big deal.

Ask yourself this - who were the Pilgrims? Were they a bunch of white people? Sure. Was that how they self-identified? Is that what brought them together? No. It is what brings people together that defines the group - and white people brought together by race have never done anything positive. Christians have done good things, the Swiss have done good things, baseball players have done good things, and while all of them are white people, that isn't what defines the group, any more than left-handedness or hair color.

Absolutely absurd.

http://www.adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=13856

http://www.adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=13774

http://www.adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=13243

http://www.adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=13166

http://www.adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=10671

http://www.adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=2500

Don't let reality interfere with your opinions.

The thread broadened from just advertising - try to keep up Steel Trap Brain.

That's awfully close to breaking the forum rules (actually, it is breaking the rules, but I came pretty close to calling you a "whiner" so I figure I'll forgive this one).

So you're afraid to debate the issue - with your mentality, that's understandable.

Okay, fine, let's debate the issue. How does all this lead to the collapse of the rule of law?

Another totally dumbass statement - eg ever hear of the Irish Holocaust? When my irish great-grandfather went to union hiring halls, he saw signs that said "NINA" in the window - know what that means? But SCREW "history", I'm talking about NOW. Really, if you can't keep your mind on the thread topic, get the hell out, OK? Good boy.

I suppose the Irish were discriminated against because they were white, right?

At least make an attempt at being cordial, and I will do the same. If you don't, we'll ban you.

No, it reminds me of the slimy self-hating masochistic white libs who create such garbage.

We're trying to fix the old problems. I'd bet you'd be perfectly happy leaving them in place. It is a bit masochistic to dislike unfair advantages in our favor; it is also fair.

No, I'm just trying to see how many jackass comments I can get from white uncle toms.

So, you're agenda is simply to cause trouble. Go figure.

 

[vyo476]

One is a ridiculous distortion of reality, like most things from libs connected with race, a sort of misplaced pep talk to blacks,

It shows a small slice of reality which isn't yet indicative of a larger trend. We hope that someday it will be, and that things like this will encourage African Americans to aspire to higher social goals. Why would you call that "misplaced"?

and the other is sneering racism against the last racial/gender group in this PC society for which such affronts are completely OK.

I've explained this before. All of these ads that "dump on" white people (as you so eloquently put it) aren't doing it because they're white, or to say something about white people, but because they need people for their gimmicks and, given the histories of other races, it would be offensive to them. Now you're getting offended because somehow you think equality today means a clean slate - I'm sorry, that's not how it works.

Absolutely correct - a ridiculous shtick they repeat over and over.

I actually agree with you here, demeaning advertising (of any kind) is rarely more successful than positive advertising.

You are the one supporting racism, and now you try to duck out of it by imagining something about me - won't work - stay on topic and continue to defend racism.

I wasn't imagining anything, I was analyzing.

No - the implication was that in order to provide all the blacks shown on TV as judges, they'd have to empty out the ghettoes to get enough people. YOU are the one defending racism.

Oh, no. You're not getting out that easily. You said "you'd think law schools were black ghettos." That doesn't say, "they'd have to empty out the ghettos in order to fill the law schools," that says, quite clearly, that the schools themselves would have to be ghettos. Unless, of course, you're going to go in for extremely non-literal interpretation techniques, which I would love to see.

 

[Libsmasher]

I am sorry, maybe I should ask you when I should be offended. I should cry when I head Drunken Irish jokes as well. Grow a pair and got on with your life. Since when was it a conservative thing to cry that your offended by everything?

Actually, you've gotten close to a good point, but you are misapplying that idea in this context. Yes, people shouldn't be hypersensitive, but when you see it over and over and over and over for years, the issue is not one of "hypersensitivity", but rather a years long focussed campaign to destroy the identity of a particular racial/gender group. When one also considers that this occurs within the context of a parallel widespread campaign of discrimination by the white establishment against ordinary white males, in practically every area of life touched by corporate or government institutions, then it's time to call what it is - racism.

 

[Libsmasher]

Those negative statements about African Americans are symbols and reminders of the oppression visited upon them as a group. White people are not dumped on for being white - they're just being dumped on, and it really isn't a big deal.

Yaaaa - just another variation on the constant lib hypocrisy on race:

Denigration of blacks?

"YOWWWWWWW!!! DEFCON 5! GO BALLISTIC! FIRE EVERYONE WITHIN 50 MILES!! RACIST! RACIST RACIST!!!!"

Denigration of white males?

"....yawwnnnn....."

Discrimination against blacks in jobs, universities?

"AGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!! CALL OUT THE PEE SEE MARINES!! SUE'EM! KKK! KKK! RACISTRACISTRACIST!!"

Discrimination against white males in jobs, universities?

"....yawwnnnn....."

Ask yourself this - who were the Pilgrims? Were they a bunch of white people? Sure. Was that how they self-identified? Is that what brought them together? No. It is what brings people together that defines the group - and white people brought together by race have never done anything positive. Christians have done good things, the Swiss have done good things, baseball players have done good things, and while all of them are white people, that isn't what defines the group, any more than left-handedness or hair color.

That is exactly correct, and it's STUNNING, actually MIND-F___KING, to hear it from a lib - libs being those who snooze through racist assaults as long as it's against white males, who believe every good or opportunity in life should be divvied up according to their racial spoils system.

http://www.adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=13856

http://www.adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=13774

http://www.adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=13243

http://www.adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=13166

http://www.adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=10671

http://www.adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=2500

Don't let reality interfere with your opinions.

The above has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about - the anti-white male ads usually occur when they show multiple ethnic groups and make the WMs look stupid. And you're logic here is "If I can show you five ads where they aren't insulting white guys, then that means they don't insult white guys."

That's awfully close to breaking the forum rules (actually, it is breaking the rules, but I came pretty close to calling you a "whiner" so I figure I'll forgive this one).

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Okay, fine, let's debate the issue. How does all this lead to the collapse of the rule of law

I never said it leads to the collapse of the rule of law - you are confused about an aside that occurred in the thread.

I suppose the Irish were discriminated against because they were white, right?

I suppose the blacks were enslaved just because they were black, right? As opposed to an easily captured primitive people?

At least make an attempt at being cordial, and I will do the same. If you don't, we'll ban you.

I deal with people at the level they operate on - if you want a real debate, lose your snotty attitude. And ban away - there are many places on the net to debate politics, I couldn't care less.

We're trying to fix the old problems. I'd bet you'd be perfectly happy leaving them in place. It is a bit masochistic to dislike unfair advantages in our favor; it is also fair.

Yaaaaaaaa - racist destruction of a group's identity "fixes old problems". What REALLY is happening is that advertisers and lib media people are trying to ingratiate themselves with minority audiences by pandering to their presumed anti-white male racism.

 

[Libsmasher]

It shows a small slice of reality which isn't yet indicative of a larger trend. We hope that someday it will be, and that things like this will encourage African Americans to aspire to higher social goals.

It's a "trend" and "higher social goal" that all judges will one day be black? Uh, er, OK.

Why would you call that "misplaced"?

Because I, and undoubtedly many other people, don't need to be lectured about what some people think blacks' role in society should be when I'm trying to watch TV. Hows about next time you go to the beach, I show up and lecture you on my political ideas?

I've explained this before. All of these ads that "dump on" white people

They dump on white males, not "white people".

(as you so eloquently put it) aren't doing it because they're white, or to say something about white people, but because they need people for their gimmicks and, given the histories of other races, it would be offensive to them. Now you're getting offended because somehow you think equality today means a clean slate - I'm sorry, that's not how it works

.

What a load of crap. I and other white males TODAY aren't part of any "slate", we don't have anything at all to do with the "histories of other races", and it is just as offensive to single out whites for group defamation, particularly when it has been so pervasive and long lasting an assault that it is a media cliche - a vile racist one. Again, you reveal the liberal mindset that racism isn't racism as long as it's against white males.

I wasn't imagining anything, I was analyzing.

No, you were imagining preposterous offensive things about my character when you don't know anything about me.

Oh, no. You're not getting out that easily. You said "you'd think law schools were black ghettos." That doesn't say, "they'd have to empty out the ghettos in order to fill the law schools," that says, quite clearly, that the schools themselves would have to be ghettos.

No, it's just as I said. Once again, we see the lib mindest: outrageous wholesale anti-WM racist attacks don't even register with you, but when it comes to blacks, you're the PC Race Police, and you want to search through every sentence, word, syllable, and punctuation mark to squeeze out the (non-existing) racism.