Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:07 pm

laklak wrote:And nobody cares. They line up to buy the latest and greatest iShit. Half the ones in line are probably Bernie Bro vegans.
Indeed, and they are subject to being scoffed at.

Some people keep track of when a store is getting a new delivery for an upcoming "season." They run to the store and buy stuff for $100, when they know full well they could wait until late in the season and pick through the sale rack for perfectly acceptable stuff at 50% or 70% off.

There are people who spend $3,000 on a bicycle, when $500 will do for their purposes. They want the best, for some reason.

There are people who buy a $30 hammer, when a $10 one is a reasonable tool for their use around the house. No need to buy the heavier one that makes it easier to bang a 10 penny nail into a two-by-four in one hit. A lighter hammer would just take three or four hits. In the end, it wouldn't be of measurable benefit for suburban guy's fix-it projects.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Hermit » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:31 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:There is nothing "excessive or rapacious" in desire for pecuniary gain resulting from employment of capital in a transaction.
When someone who, with the sweat of his brow saves enough money to put down as a deposit for a home, then spends years paying it off and eventually sells it at a presumably much higher market value when the children have flown the coop and it is time to downsize, that person is making a profit - from his/her own labour. No greed involved because there is no exploitation involved. We're not talking about that.
Profiting off the sale of land, whether one year down the road, or 20-30 years down the road, is not profit from labor.
Ultimately, it is. Your own or that of others. I am pretty sure that no enterprise would bother employing anyone if that were not the case.
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:What we're talking about is when Apple Corp creams off 20 to 25% of the value its workers create and directs it into the pockets of its shareholders, which, in the words of one Apple executive "requires factories that seem harsh by American standards", profit meets greed.
In this sense, when there is not a level playing field among nations, there is a good reason to saddle the offending country, like China, with hefty tariffs so that the human cost is combatted. The libertarian might say that the tariffs should be 0 so that the low cost/low reg country like China could import in goods to the US, and then eventually the wages and benefits in China will go up and even out with the US (which will go down, quite possibly).

What are you referring to with Apple? Net profit? What's your basis for determining what is too much and what is reasonable net profit. I would agree, however, that there is a place for regulation of factories, and there should at least be a level enough playing field that countries cannot have 0 minimum wage compared to $8 an hour or more, and low cost facilities due to low or no regulation on safety and benefits etc. I don't think that's a function of the greed of a particular net profit number -- that's a function of a place like China not taking care of its workers, which is typical of a communism-based country. Working conditions in communist countries have for the last 100 years been generally worse than that found in capitalist countries.
There is no need to gish-gallop. I was perfectly clear. When a corporation keeps handing its shareholders 20 to 25% of total revenue while keeping its employees in harsh conditions, greed and profit are combined. Apple Corp is of course not the only enterprise to do that. Most of the shoes and other garments are made like that. Of course the big companies try to evade responsibility via subcontracting, but in my opinion it makes them even more callous.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 17, 2018 2:38 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Well, the problem with that is that many products are partly, if not wholly, purchased for their emotional impact.
And that is precisely what advertisements exploit. They play chiefly on fears and desires, and any others they can use as a hook too. It is indeed, as you say, a problem.
Do you find yourself buying things you don't want? Can you give examples where you've realized later that advertising gave you a "desire to have" or made you greedy? Have you found yourself buying things out fear, or untoward desires?
I've bought Air Jordans before, when any other brand of basketball shoe would have functioned more or less the same at the level I was playing at. The reason I bought them was because of Michael Jordan's name associated with them. Not on any quality measure that I can remember. Without being infected by 'brand Jordan' I would have bought a pair of basketball shoes that were probably half the price or less, and they wouldn't have failed to provide me the same benefits that Jordans did.

The fears that people face are most commonly "not fitting in with their peer group", and "mother guilt".
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Hermit » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:06 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Well, the problem with that is that many products are partly, if not wholly, purchased for their emotional impact.
And that is precisely what advertisements exploit. They play chiefly on fears and desires, and any others they can use as a hook too. It is indeed, as you say, a problem.
We're not using the word "problem" in the same way. The problem I'm identifying is with the distinction you and others are trying to make.

How are we to determine what products are being sold by practical, real world, functional, factual use information, and which ones are being sold by manipulation? Who is to say what the use of a product is, if not the customer?

Take a car - are they only to be sold based on their ability to drive you to a place, and their relative gas mileage, power, and torque ratios? Just the practical, factual pluses and minuses? Or, is it o.k. to sell based on status, beauty, or other less practical/factual features?

Should shoes only be sold based on how comfortable they are demonstrated by evidence based studies to be, and how durable? Or, can they be sold based on how fashionable they are, and how much they make the customer lust for that particular shoe design? If a person says they get an emotional rush from a beautiful new pair of shoes, is that not something they ought to be able to buy?

I got to the mall, and I see stores just flooded with clothing options. Hundreds, upon hundreds of shirts, shoes, socks, dresses, slacks, jackets -- thousands of options - every color - every shape - every fabric - mountains of options. And, customers shopping around, trying them on - often seeing how the shirt or dress or shoes "make them feel" and then buying them. Often they will have closets full of clothes at home, far more than they "need." The different brands of clothing lines sell based on a variety of factors, often not factual things like warmth, durability, practicality.

It seems that one might argue that we shouldn't have those options, and clothes should not be sold on status. Why does a Tommy Bahama shirt cost $110 to $135 or more - it's just a short sleeved bowling shirt. Another brand, same material, same basic look, can cost 1/3 of that - or less on the "sale rack." Is Tommy Bahama "manipulating" me if I buy that shirt because their advertisements don't focus on the strength and durability of their fabric and how well the buttons are sewn on?
You give me the impression that you are still trying to argue that it is OK to exploit primeval fears and desires of prospective consumers to sell a product. Do tell me what is so good about it.

I'll even sort of help you with that right now. A few decades ago Volvo was advertising the safety of its cars. It played on the fears of people about getting hurt or even killed on the road. All good, I think. Volvo did exploit a fear, but it basically did so by comparing its brick, feature by feature (such as side impact protection) which no other car maker could match at the time (except for Mercedes, a much less affordable car). The emotional appeal was backed up by stone cold, hard, objective facts.

That is, somewhat amusingly, how Volvo drivers got such a bad reputation. People who knew they were incompetent drivers bought Volvos because they knew they were more likely to fuck up on the road. But at least they were confident of a better survival rate than if they drove a Ford Pinto. I personally knew several Volvo owners who told me exactly that. One of them, a doctor, finished up wrapping his Volvo around a power pole going around a curve at about 40 km/hr. I know which curve it was too, having fanged around it in my Beetle at 85 many times. with nary a squeal from the tyres. He walked away unscathed, then had the good sense to surrender his driver's license.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:10 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Well, the problem with that is that many products are partly, if not wholly, purchased for their emotional impact.
And that is precisely what advertisements exploit. They play chiefly on fears and desires, and any others they can use as a hook too. It is indeed, as you say, a problem.
Do you find yourself buying things you don't want? Can you give examples where you've realized later that advertising gave you a "desire to have" or made you greedy? Have you found yourself buying things out fear, or untoward desires?
I've bought Air Jordans before, when any other brand of basketball shoe would have functioned more or less the same at the level I was playing at. The reason I bought them was because of Michael Jordan's name associated with them. Not on any quality measure that I can remember. Without being infected by 'brand Jordan' I would have bought a pair of basketball shoes that were probably half the price or less, and they wouldn't have failed to provide me the same benefits that Jordans did.
What's the solution? Require people to not brand their shoes? The whole notion of a brand was to put a mark on a cow to let the buyer know that it was being sold by someone offering a particular standard.

I agree with you on your assessment of sneakers. I would never pay a premium for a brand, and I tend to buy my sneakers based on how they fit. I prefer them to be black. I never get anything fancy, or in any way fashion based. I tend to buy Nikes, but I know where to go to look through the boxes and find them for less than $50. If the shoe is less than $50, I'm comfortable with the price, if the shoe fits, and Nikes tend to fit me well. I'd do some work looking for another brand, if I stopped finding them for $30 to $50. Somehow, I've managed to resist the manipulation of Nike's best efforts to get me to buy $100 to $200 and up.

When you bought the Air Jordans, were they what you wanted? Why did you buy them?
pErvinalia wrote:
The fears that people face are most commonly "not fitting in with their peer group", and "mother guilt".
Well, people will always want to fit in with peer groups. We're social animals. What can be done about it? Legislate acceptance of other people into peer groups? Or, prevent people from making clothes that are sold to groups of people who value certain fashions?

I don't know what mother guilt is, so I googled it. It's the fear of a "mother" that one can't afford to buy some stuff for their kids, or can't spend more time with their kids. Not sure how this relates. But, I guess what you're saying is a retailer is marketing a product to sort of guilt the mother into buying the unnecessary but expensive product for their kids, who clamor for it or something. I guess I don't see what the solution is here. Prohibit someone from selling the latest toy craze - my 5 year old went nuts for these garbage "LOL dolls." Just shitty plastic toys, overpriced like beanie babies and cabbage patch kids. Kids like fad toys. So.... no more commercials for toys? No more commercials for toys deemed (by whom?) to be "fad toys?" No more commercials for toys that are deemed (by whom?) overpriced?

The end result of all this winds up being a bureaucracy that is going to make these decisions. How that's better is beyond me.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by laklak » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:22 pm

If people are so stupid they're taken in by the utterly crap adverts you see on the telly then fuck 'em. I'm far more likely to NOT buy something that's advertised.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:23 pm

Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Well, the problem with that is that many products are partly, if not wholly, purchased for their emotional impact.
And that is precisely what advertisements exploit. They play chiefly on fears and desires, and any others they can use as a hook too. It is indeed, as you say, a problem.
We're not using the word "problem" in the same way. The problem I'm identifying is with the distinction you and others are trying to make.

How are we to determine what products are being sold by practical, real world, functional, factual use information, and which ones are being sold by manipulation? Who is to say what the use of a product is, if not the customer?

Take a car - are they only to be sold based on their ability to drive you to a place, and their relative gas mileage, power, and torque ratios? Just the practical, factual pluses and minuses? Or, is it o.k. to sell based on status, beauty, or other less practical/factual features?

Should shoes only be sold based on how comfortable they are demonstrated by evidence based studies to be, and how durable? Or, can they be sold based on how fashionable they are, and how much they make the customer lust for that particular shoe design? If a person says they get an emotional rush from a beautiful new pair of shoes, is that not something they ought to be able to buy?

I got to the mall, and I see stores just flooded with clothing options. Hundreds, upon hundreds of shirts, shoes, socks, dresses, slacks, jackets -- thousands of options - every color - every shape - every fabric - mountains of options. And, customers shopping around, trying them on - often seeing how the shirt or dress or shoes "make them feel" and then buying them. Often they will have closets full of clothes at home, far more than they "need." The different brands of clothing lines sell based on a variety of factors, often not factual things like warmth, durability, practicality.

It seems that one might argue that we shouldn't have those options, and clothes should not be sold on status. Why does a Tommy Bahama shirt cost $110 to $135 or more - it's just a short sleeved bowling shirt. Another brand, same material, same basic look, can cost 1/3 of that - or less on the "sale rack." Is Tommy Bahama "manipulating" me if I buy that shirt because their advertisements don't focus on the strength and durability of their fabric and how well the buttons are sewn on?
You give me the impression that you are still trying to argue that it is OK to exploit primeval fears and desires of prospective consumers to sell a product. Do tell me what is so good about it.
What is good about exploiting primeval (primal?) fears and desires of prospective customers to sell a product? I haven't said anything was "good" about it. I'm not sure what fear or desire you're talking about. I mean, it's primal desire to drink stuff, so yeah, exploiting that desire to sell beverages seems pretty normal. Exploiting hunger to advertise a restaurant seems pretty normal.

I guess I would ask you to define the fears and desires you think are not proper subjects for advertising, and how you would identify when an advertiser is improperly exploiting those fears as opposed to factually describing the benefits and superiority of their product, and who will make that determination.

You feel there is a board of review that can be appointed to look at advertisments and determine if the shoe is being marketed for legitimate footwear purposes and not to play on the fear of being ostracized by a peer group?

Hermit wrote: I'll even sort of help you with that right now. A few decades ago Volvo was advertising the safety of its cars. It played on the fears of people about getting hurt or even killed on the road.
Sounds pretty reasonable. 30,000+ people are killed on the road.
Hermit wrote: All good, I think. Volvo did exploit a fear, but it basically did so by comparing its brick, feature by feature (such as side impact protection) which no other car maker could match at the time (except for Mercedes, a much less affordable car). The emotional appeal was backed up by stone cold, hard, objective facts.
Sounds like quite the persuasive advertisement.
Hermit wrote:
That is, somewhat amusingly, how Volvo drivers got such a bad reputation. People who knew they were incompetent drivers bought Volvos because they knew they were more likely to fuck up on the road. But at least they were confident of a better survival rate than if they drove a Ford Pinto. I personally knew several Volvo owners who told me exactly that. One of them, a doctor, finished up wrapping his Volvo around a power pole going around a curve at about 40 km/hr. I know which curve it was too, having fanged around it in my Beetle at 85 many times. with nary a squeal from the tyres. He walked away unscathed, then had the good sense to surrender his driver's license.
Sounds reasonable for incompetent drivers to buy the safest car they can. It is a very rare case that a driver acknowledges their own incompetence. Apparently, most people think they're above average. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/ne ... erage.html

My understanding is that Volvo made its sales not on selling to the fears of admitted incompetents, but rather on the desire of parents for safety. People with kids were more likely to consider a Volvo, because they want to make sure they buy the safest car for their kids. They fear getting in an accident and realizing they sacrified something in exchange for a lower prices. It's a lot like Michelin tire advertising. They try to convince the buyer that paying more for Michelins means you're protecting your family better.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:13 pm

Forty Two wrote:
pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Well, the problem with that is that many products are partly, if not wholly, purchased for their emotional impact.
And that is precisely what advertisements exploit. They play chiefly on fears and desires, and any others they can use as a hook too. It is indeed, as you say, a problem.
Do you find yourself buying things you don't want? Can you give examples where you've realized later that advertising gave you a "desire to have" or made you greedy? Have you found yourself buying things out fear, or untoward desires?
I've bought Air Jordans before, when any other brand of basketball shoe would have functioned more or less the same at the level I was playing at. The reason I bought them was because of Michael Jordan's name associated with them. Not on any quality measure that I can remember. Without being infected by 'brand Jordan' I would have bought a pair of basketball shoes that were probably half the price or less, and they wouldn't have failed to provide me the same benefits that Jordans did.
What's the solution? Require people to not brand their shoes? The whole notion of a brand was to put a mark on a cow to let the buyer know that it was being sold by someone offering a particular standard.
I've already stated that I don't know what a solution would be to this problem. But a good start would be to ban ads, as best as possible, to kids.
When you bought the Air Jordans, were they what you wanted? Why did you buy them?
I told you. Because of the name association. (and of course, I needed basketball shoes as I was playing basketball).
pErvinalia wrote:
The fears that people face are most commonly "not fitting in with their peer group", and "mother guilt".
Well, people will always want to fit in with peer groups. We're social animals. What can be done about it? Legislate acceptance of other people into peer groups? Or, prevent people from making clothes that are sold to groups of people who value certain fashions?
I don't know what can be done about it. But you asked what some of the fears were that influence consumers, so listed some of them.
I don't know what mother guilt is, so I googled it. It's the fear of a "mother" that one can't afford to buy some stuff for their kids, or can't spend more time with their kids. Not sure how this relates. But, I guess what you're saying is a retailer is marketing a product to sort of guilt the mother into buying the unnecessary but expensive product for their kids, who clamor for it or something.
Yep, that's exactly what I am saying.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:16 pm

laklak wrote:If people are so stupid they're taken in by the utterly crap adverts you see on the telly then fuck 'em. I'm far more likely to NOT buy something that's advertised.
I'm sorry Lak, but you are no different to every other human out there. We are first and foremost irrational creatures. The level to which we can apply rationality to counter those irrational biases we have, determines how much we will be conditioned and primed by advertising (including product placement in movies (the ones that aren't obvious)). But there's no way that you aren't subject to irrational thinking like the rest of us. You are an uber-rationalist, no doubt, but you're not that good. ;)
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:23 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:{snip}
What is good about exploiting primeval (primal?) fears and desires of prospective customers to sell a product? I haven't said anything was "good" about it.
42 wrote:Advertising is just people saying what they want to say. And, yes, freedom is better than the alternative.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1763414

Given that a large segment of advertising (if not damned near all of it) is based on exploitation of common fears/insecurities, it sounds like you are saying that it is good.. because freedom. Although, I guess you could be really saying it's shit, but it's less shit than the alternative...
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:24 pm

I know Lak, and he buys his beer based on the number of tits in the commercials.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:28 pm

We all know Lak... :hehe:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by Forty Two » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:39 pm

pErvinalia wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
Hermit wrote:{snip}
What is good about exploiting primeval (primal?) fears and desires of prospective customers to sell a product? I haven't said anything was "good" about it.
42 wrote:Advertising is just people saying what they want to say. And, yes, freedom is better than the alternative.
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1763414

Given that a large segment of advertising (if not damned near all of it) is based on exploitation of common fears/insecurities, it sounds like you are saying that it is good.. because freedom. Although, I guess you could be really saying it's shit, but it's less shit than the alternative...
Or, those aren't the only choices, and perhaps I said what I meant and meant what I said, and recasting it as a moral judgment about goodness is not what I said.

I do think freedom is a "good," of course. I won't deny that. Freedom is the power and right to speak, think or act as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Freedom appears to be something humans value -- evidence of that would seem to come from what appears to be the human preference for not being oppressed, dominated, or ordered around, imprisoned, or made to do things against our well. Freedom is a feature of humanity that would allow us "choice" and the right to "consent" or not "consent" to the actions of others. We have the "Freedom" to exclude others from our bodies and brains, the right to think what we like, and, yes, the right to express our opinions as we like. If you take this "freedum" (as you like to call it) away from a human being takes away something that a human being typically values. We oppose slavery, because it is the denial of freedom. We oppose indentured servitude, because it is a denial of freedom (even if consented to once at the beginning). We oppose arbitrary imprisonment of individuals, and we take very seriously when one person "Trespasses" on the rights or property of another person, precisely because "freedum" is valuable to most humans.

We have a system of laws which, in the west, typically must be applied in a way that gives equal protection of the laws to people -- i.e., there has to be equal application of the law, because of another value that humans hold as valuable and important - equality, equal treatment, etc.

So, it's not some mindless attachment to "freedum" -- duh, advertisements are "good" because, duh, "freedum." That's not the argument.

What is an advertisement? It's expression. It's words. It's pictures. It's a message. Someone is saying something, verbalizing an opinion or statement about something. Yes, it's about selling a product or service, but it is, nevertheless, a person writing or broadcasting a message - information - an opinion.

You may feel that it's just "duh, freedum!" to say that the right of people to express the views they want, say the words they want, and voice the opinions they want is rather important, and not to be trifled with lightly, and not to be handed over to a bureau or ministry to determine when a message is "fact based" and when it is "exploiting a primal fear" improperly. That may be your view, but it isn't mine.

I think a lot of good discussion could be had about what advertising can and should be restricted or regulated. Some aspects may be clearer or more conducive than others. But, this nonsense that you constantly interject, trying to sully other people's arguments by recasting them as some sort of simplistic bleat after "freedum" is both tiresome and stupid. You have a lack of nuance, and a lack of critical thinking ability, and it causes you to blurt out dopey things like "42 just says freedum!" - what's next? You'll start spelling America with three "k's" -- Amerikkka! You'll start calling Republicans "Repugnicans" or liberals "Libtards?" That's the level you're at.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by laklak » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:41 pm

Forty Two wrote:I know Lak, and he buys his beer based on the number of tits in the commercials.
I buy it because the Most Interesting Man In The World told me to.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Why Isn't Communism Viewed As Negatively as Nazism?

Post by laklak » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:46 pm

pErvinalia wrote: But there's no way that you aren't subject to irrational thinking like the rest of us. You are an uber-rationalist, no doubt, but you're not that good. ;)
old man shakes fist.jpg
old man shakes fist.jpg (8.02 KiB) Viewed 2613 times
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests