The New Gillette Social Awareness Campaign

309 posts in this topic

16 hours ago, J0ker said:

You're joking right?  Your idea has absolutely no probability of success in the real world.  If you're going to redefine masculinity then the burden of proof lies with you.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that brute force and mass sedation is out of the question so you're going to have to convince men to change.  Tell me how would a grumpy old "uncool" woman, who hates men by the way, convince men they should start acting differently?

 

First of all, it's a little strange to be talking about "burdens of proof" here, as we are talking about normative aspirations and not posited claims about the world as it is. 

 

But obviously it can't simply be one single marketing executive that manages to work her will on the world, which isn't *really* her goal anyway in this case -- it's to get attention for the Gillette brand, even if she is personally a lesbian feminist of some kind.  Social change will work its way in the usual ways -- if you think attitudes and standards don't change through human action, you're mistaken.  Not everything exists to satisfy particular young men's horniness at a particular point in time.  The very rise of backlash movements suggests that there is an effect.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, J0ker said:

 

This 20th century historian offered quite a bit of hard evidence for his assertions.  If you're going to contradict him, you have to provide counter-evidence in addition to proof supporting your statements.

 

I have to do no such thing. As I said, even if I wanted to, I do not have the time currently to engage in a detailed disputation about a 20C historian.  In history, the perspective of the historian matters, and even the best historians must necessarily see the past through the filter of contemporary concerns.  Here, I would be arguing with a 21C web forum right-winger interpretation of a 20C historian's take on a complex process that took hundreds of years, and whose participants would not recognize any of the perspectives involved.  The fact that you talk about Romans in terms of modern nation-state immigration policy demonstrates the breadth of the gulf.

 

In lieu of that, I gave you the general gist of the response I would have made, if I had the time for pages and pages of argument.  I leave it as a salutary exercise to you, if you wish to understand, to ruminate on what I might have used to justify that that position. Or not, it's up to you.

 

17 hours ago, J0ker said:

 

There's a difference between seeing what you want to see and what is actually there.  The basic idea is that strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create bad times, bad times create strong men.  It's a cycle that keeps on repeating itself.

 

If you had thought about it, you would have understood that this is just a more charitable restatement of what I was saying.  The dialectic you identify between "strong men" and "weak men" is a conflict between masculinities.  This conflict produces collateral damage, and the question is what happens when the collateral damage itself decides to seize agency and act against that dialectic.  This is not a situation that easily lends itself to comparison with the decline of Rome.

 

17 hours ago, J0ker said:

 

What can I say?  It seems the ladies have spoken. 

 

Argumentum ad hornitudinem.

 

17 hours ago, J0ker said:

 

Anyways you seem to have the impression that traditional masculinity exclusively means brute strength which is not true.  There are good and bad sides to both masculinity and femininity and yet you are choosing to focus exclusively on the bad.

 

 

Clearly, masculinity and strength are not directly related, even if many men seem to view the likelihood of having greater upper body strength than their female peers as Identitätsstiftend.  Real Existing Masculinity, at least the kind labelled toxic, has at its core to do with expectations of control and reactions to lack of such. Indeed, if you take that away, you obtain a set of character traits that are generally laudable in both men and women.  (A likely second major characteristic of masculinity is the denial of credit for those character traits to women.)

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

I have to do no such thing. As I said, even if I wanted to, I do not have the time currently to engage in a detailed disputation about a 20C historian.  In history, the perspective of the historian matters, and even the best historians must necessarily see the past through the filter of contemporary concerns.  Here, I would be arguing with a 21C web forum right-winger interpretation of a 20C historian's take on a complex process that took hundreds of years, and whose participants would not recognize any of the perspectives involved.  The fact that you talk about Romans in terms of modern nation-state immigration policy demonstrates the breadth of the gulf.

 

In lieu of that, I gave you the general gist of the response I would have made, if I had the time for pages and pages of argument.  I leave it as a salutary exercise to you, if you wish to understand, to ruminate on what I might have used to justify that that position. Or not, it's up to you.

 

 

If you had thought about it, you would have understood that this is just a more charitable restatement of what I was saying.  The dialectic you identify between "strong men" and "weak men" is a conflict between masculinities.  This conflict produces collateral damage, and the question is what happens when the collateral damage itself decides to seize agency and act against that dialectic.  This is not a situation that easily lends itself to comparison with the decline of Rome.

 

 

Argumentum ad hornitudinem.

 

 

Clearly, masculinity and strength are not directly related, even if many men seem to view the likelihood of having greater upper body strength than their female peers as Identitätsstiftend.  Real Existing Masculinity, at least the kind labelled toxic, has at its core to do with expectations of control and reactions to lack of such. Indeed, if you take that away, you obtain a set of character traits that are generally laudable in both men and women.  (A likely second major characteristic of masculinity is the denial of credit for those character traits to women.)

6 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

First of all, it's a little strange to be talking about "burdens of proof" here, as we are talking about normative aspirations and not posited claims about the world as it is. 

 

But obviously it can't simply be one single marketing executive that manages to work her will on the world, which isn't *really* her goal anyway in this case -- it's to get attention for the Gillette brand, even if she is personally a lesbian feminist of some kind.  Social change will work its way in the usual ways -- if you think attitudes and standards don't change through human action, you're mistaken.  Not everything exists to satisfy particular young men's horniness at a particular point in time.  The very rise of backlash movements suggests that there is an effect.

You say absolutely nothing here.  If you're going to attempt to change somebody's behaviour without brute force you have to convince that person and hence you have to prove that your way is better.  Therefore the burden of proof falls on you.  If you can't do that then you can create an echo chambre where the ideal man's behaviour is that of a dodo bird.  Nice for a philosophy exercise but useless in real life.

 

In essence you're making the mistake as those 80s and 90s anti-drug commercials they showed us at school.  Drugs drugs drugs. Which are good?  Which are bad?  Drugs drugs drugs.  Ask your mom or ask your dad.  As kids we simply laughed at them because they were cheesy and in the long run had very little effect on influencing our decision whether or not to experiment with drugs.

 

5 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

I have to do no such thing. As I said, even if I wanted to, I do not have the time currently to engage in a detailed disputation about a 20C historian.  In history, the perspective of the historian matters, and even the best historians must necessarily see the past through the filter of contemporary concerns.  Here, I would be arguing with a 21C web forum right-winger interpretation of a 20C historian's take on a complex process that took hundreds of years, and whose participants would not recognize any of the perspectives involved.  The fact that you talk about Romans in terms of modern nation-state immigration policy demonstrates the breadth of the gulf.

 

In lieu of that, I gave you the general gist of the response I would have made, if I had the time for pages and pages of argument.  I leave it as a salutary exercise to you, if you wish to understand, to ruminate on what I might have used to justify that that position. Or not, it's up to you.

I'm not putting a gun to your head but the fact that you are refusing to disprove his conclusion, despite him offering hard evidence, tells me you are unable to do so.  I'm not going to pursue this matter any further if you don't want me to but you can't say that a 20th century historian's opinion is irrelevant without evidence.  Would you also say the Pythagorean theorem is irrelevant because Pythagoras lived in 6th century B.C. Greece?  As I said I won't push this any further if you're not interested.

 

5 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

If you had thought about it, you would have understood that this is just a more charitable restatement of what I was saying.  The dialectic you identify between "strong men" and "weak men" is a conflict between masculinities.  This conflict produces collateral damage, and the question is what happens when the collateral damage itself decides to seize agency and act against that dialectic.  This is not a situation that easily lends itself to comparison with the decline of Rome.

Au contraire it very much does.  Republican Romans were stoics while the Empire "Romans" were epicurean. Luxury, massive accumulation of wealth and cheap slaves killed the Roman's hunger and ambition and they fell into a spiral of decadence.

 

5 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

Argumentum ad hornitudinem.

Hey I'm living in the real world but I assume you mean argumentum ad hominem?  However if you had read Aristotle you would have noticed that logic and reason aren't the only weapons a rhetorician can use.  There's the emotional aspect of an argument; people aren't machines and a speaker can sway their emotions.  And there is the character of the speaker; for example if you preach the carbon tax and how we should consume less energy but your house consumes 20 times the national average then your opponents will use that against you.

 

5 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

Real Existing Masculinity, at least the kind labelled toxic, has at its core to do with expectations of control and reactions to lack of such.

I don't know what movies you watched as a kid but the Harvey Weinstein type was never seen as a role model for boys.  Typical masculine role models included J.C. Van Damme, Arnold, Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris etc.  These men, or at least the characters they played, were physically strong, unbeatable in combat, always calm and composed under pressure, never gave up and at the same time they protected women, children and those who couldn't fight.  They were the men that little boys dreamed of becoming.  Not some fat sleazy Hollywood executive, who by the way was a male "feminist", who had to resort to blackmail and exertion to have women sleep with him.

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, J0ker said:

I don't know what movies you watched as a kid but the Harvey Weinstein type was never seen as a role model for boys.  Typical masculine role models included J.C. Van Damme, Arnold, Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris etc.  These men, or at least the characters they played, were physically strong, unbeatable in combat, always calm and composed under pressure, never gave up and at the same time they protected women, children and those who couldn't fight.  They were the men that little boys dreamed of becoming. 

 

Take a look at the toxicity exuded by these men, who by the way desperately need a Gillette:

 

 

Can anyone remember watching this and walking round next day with the Clint "stare"? Er, only me then.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019, 3:00:11, theGman said:

Firstly renting isn't necessarily bad, look at the Germans.

Owning is better than renting. Money paid to your mortgage goes mostly towards your equity if you do it right. Rent money is lost. I've read somewhere that only about 10 % of Berliners own their place of residence. So a minority of people own the majority of properties? Doesn't sound very equitable. :)

 

On 1/18/2019, 3:00:11, theGman said:

Would you rather grow up in the 50s instead of now? Or anytime in history instead of now?

I wouldn't mind going back a few decades. The way I see the world today in 2019 is that there is too much division and hatred. I know it was never perfect but we live in times where people are starting to outright hate each other for differing political views. Then there is the growing difference between the rich and poor. People are becoming more distant and lonely because of technology etc.

 

On 1/18/2019, 3:00:11, theGman said:

But to come back to it. Why does any of this make you disagree with you, me and the boys buying Gillette bettering ourselves?

There is nothing wrong with improving yourself but the tone of the ad is condescending and would it fly if you mention how women need to improve themselves? This is not about improving yourself. It's about redefining masculinity.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2019, 11:13:19, J0ker said:

You say absolutely nothing here.  If you're going to attempt to change somebody's behaviour without brute force you have to convince that person and hence you have to prove that your way is better.  Therefore the burden of proof falls on you.  If you can't do that then you can create an echo chambre where the ideal man's behaviour is that of a dodo bird.  Nice for a philosophy exercise but useless in real life.

 

*blink* You, uh, think that the only choices in mass behavioral and cultural change are "brute force" and "convincing"? *sits down*

 

On 1/20/2019, 11:13:19, J0ker said:

 

 

I'm not putting a gun to your head but the fact that you are refusing to disprove his conclusion, despite him offering hard evidence, tells me you are unable to do so. 

 

Alas, yes, by the Ancient and Venerable Customs of the Argument Judges of the Internet, based as they are on the demonstration of Endurance and Swiftness, you have Won.  Here, I offer up all my internet points to you, the Victor.

 

On 1/20/2019, 11:13:19, J0ker said:

I'm not going to pursue this matter any further if you don't want me to but you can't say that a 20th century historian's opinion is irrelevant without evidence.  Would you also say the Pythagorean theorem is irrelevant because Pythagoras lived in 6th century B.C. Greece?  As I said I won't push this any further if you're not interested.

 

I did not say that Durant's opinion was irrelevant. I merely pointed out the many layers of interpretation that I would have to go through in order to dig through your interpretation of Durant and then disentangle Durant's contemporary concerns from the history he analyzes -- and then lay my own cards on the table (fair is fair).  And then: finally to come to an accounting of whether your argument is supported by Durant, and whether Durant's interpretation license the importation of contemporary concerns (about things that didn't exist in the Roman world) into the discussion of the decline of Rome.  Whew!

 

This stuff takes time, and if my inability to give you that time means that you consider me to have no argument, so be it. This is the Internet, the stakes are high, you get the prize.

 

On 1/20/2019, 11:13:19, J0ker said:

 

 

Au contraire it very much does.  Republican Romans were stoics while the Empire "Romans" were epicurean. Luxury, massive accumulation of wealth and cheap slaves killed the Roman's hunger and ambition and they fell into a spiral of decadence.

 

You missed my main point, which was about the collateral damage (for example, the cheap slaves) in the conflict between different forms of male-led social dominance/governance.

 

On 1/20/2019, 11:13:19, J0ker said:

 

Hey I'm living in the real world but I assume you mean argumentum ad hominem?  However if you had read Aristotle you would have noticed that logic and reason aren't the only weapons a rhetorician can use.  There's the emotional aspect of an argument; people aren't machines and a speaker can sway their emotions.  And there is the character of the speaker; for example if you preach the carbon tax and how we should consume less energy but your house consumes 20 times the national average then your opponents will use that against you.

 

No, I was making a play on words thinking that your Rome enthusiasm would extend to being able to decode Latin noun declensions off fake words confected from English.  ie, "horny" -> "hornitude" -> "hornitudo" -> "hornitudinem" (3rd declension accusative of a -tudo noun).  "Argument to horniness", in other words, the use of a reference to sexual preference/gratification as an argument. 

 

On 1/20/2019, 11:13:19, J0ker said:

 

I don't know what movies you watched as a kid but the Harvey Weinstein type was never seen as a role model for boys.  Typical masculine role models included J.C. Van Damme, Arnold, Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris etc.  These men, or at least the characters they played, were physically strong, unbeatable in combat, always calm and composed under pressure, never gave up and at the same time they protected women, children and those who couldn't fight.  They were the men that little boys dreamed of becoming.  Not some fat sleazy Hollywood executive, who by the way was a male "feminist", who had to resort to blackmail and exertion to have women sleep with him.

 

 

 

 

The point is that the "ideal" male role model that your talking about is just the flip side of the "sleazy" version, i.e., one exists in a kind of tension with the other. Both of them have to do with the fetishization of control and the appropriation of good and bad human character traits to one sex only.  Note that it is people like Weinstein involved in making these movies, choosing what plots appear on screen, choosing the heroes, etc.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

The point is that the "ideal" male role model that your talking about is just the flip side of the "sleazy" version, i.e., one exists in a kind of tension with the other. Both of them have to do with the fetishization of control and the appropriation of good and bad human character traits to one sex only.  Note that it is people like Weinstein involved in making these movies, choosing what plots appear on screen, choosing the heroes, etc.

 

Ha! It's "you're" not "your" Ha! Caught out the Imp! Now I feel briefly cleverer than him! Win for me! 

 

Impressed with your Latin. My son is studying it daughter French. She just did an exchange visit with a charming French girl here with us. My poor son can only do an exchange visit with Gladiator school....

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hooperski said:

"My son is studying it daughter French".  Explain that sentence...

Possibly translating from 17th century Japanese, hoops. But I´m a bit tired tonight  and don´t have time/energy to check my diary from that time!

:rolleyes:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, hooperski said:

"My son is studying it daughter French".  Explain that sentence...

 

Eh up I'm a shit for brains sometimes!

 

I meant my son is learning Latin and my daughter is learning French.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your children should be studying 17th Century Japanese, jeremy. What sort of a father are you?

:D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, john g. said:

Your children should be studying 17th Century Japanese, jeremy. What sort of a father are you?

:D

 

Jesus John the pressure these poor babies are under today is horrible. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20.1.2019, 17:03:53, Eupathic Impulse said:

Argumentum ad hornitudinem.

 

:lol::D:)

 

1 hour ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

No, I was making a play on words thinking that your Rome enthusiasm would extend to being able to decode Latin noun declensions off fake words confected from English.  ie, "horny" -> "hornitude" -> "hornitudo" -> "hornitudinem" (3rd declension accusative of a -tudo noun).  "Argument to horniness", in other words, the use of a reference to sexual preference/gratification as an argument.

 

Hahahaha, not laughed that much in ages, although I suppose mostly that the explanation was necessary. Thanks. Enjoyed that.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now