Social Justice and Other Such Issues

Anonus · 2014-07-09 00:02:38

A spin-off of sorts from the Tumblr thread. I know this weighs on some peoples' minds, and they have no real outlet for it here. So here this is.

If things get too heated, however, this thread is done.

Obā-san · 2014-07-09 00:11:35

http://beyoungandshutup.com/2014/07/08/the-shame-of-proud-whoppers/

Aliroz · 2014-07-09 00:14:54

Don't worry, this thread's gonna be just fine.

Morven · 2014-07-09 03:39:02

As gay people become more accepted in America, companies will market to gay people more. This is a sign of success, not failure. And when those companies recognize that gay people are an important part of their market, they behave better on gay issues.

I am tired of people (largely too young to have experienced it) pining for the days of being more marginalized and hated and attacked.

Salix Babylonika · 2014-07-09 03:44:45

There are people that do that?

Hexartes · 2014-07-09 03:45:57

Yeah, complaining about a company expressing support of something because it brings in profits just seems kinda asinine to me. Like, that's the point of marketing in the first place.

Is it cynical? Maybe. Harmful horrible queerbaiting, though? I'd hesitate to call it that.

Anonus · 2014-07-09 03:49:29

Morven said:
I am tired of people (largely too young to have experienced it) pining for the days of being more marginalized and hated and attacked.

I don't get that at all

As a brown-skinned person sometimes I am made uncomfortable by '50s or '60s nostalgia...

Hexartes · 2014-07-09 03:50:41

What I'm curious about, though, is what exactly the lose condition here.

So you fall for disingenuous marketing (read: marketing, period.). You, and a lot of other people do, in fact. Burger King realizes, hey, this queer market ain't so bad, markets to them a bit more. Other businesses pick up on this, begin marketing to them as well, mostly succeeding. Suddenly, support for LGBT people seems just a bit more ubiquitous.

Is it done cynically, just for the sake of profits? Well, yeah, that's how big businesses work. But I feel the outcome here is positive.

Salix Babylonika · 2014-07-09 03:50:52

That article actually seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Overly cynical marketing is deeply distasteful and I don't see anything wrong with saying it's such. Nothing I read there indicated that they were pining for the good ol' days of rampant violent homophobia or anything along those lines.

Ultimately the writer seems to have more a problem with the intersection of capitalism and social justice issues than either of those things specifically. Unfortunately, this is America, and absolutely everything will be run through the meat grinder that is the public market eventually.

Hexartes · 2014-07-09 03:53:47

What I'm curious about is the alternative.

Businesses will always be looking for a market to pander to; and I'd much rather it be the LGBT community than far-right nutjobs. You can't just expect them to not dabble in social issues at all.

Salix Babylonika · 2014-07-09 03:54:56

I think the intent of the article is being misread. Writer is complaining because they think it's stupid, and they're basically just saying that it is stupid. I don't really think it goes deeper than that.

Also that guy in the comments who appears to have a picture of James Buchanan (?!) as an avatar is a douchebag.

Hexartes · 2014-07-09 03:56:36

Clearly that they felt the need to spend several paragraphs means that the sentiment they wanted to express was more than just "this is rather silly marketing and I'm not going to fall for it." I don't think it's unreasonable to read into it.

Morven · 2014-07-09 03:57:56

Granted, I am probably reading this with eyes that have seen too much oh-so-edgy nonsense along those lines. People too invested in being outsiders, being rebels. So maybe I'm reading more into it than is really there, I'll grant that.

And the fact is, being mainstream means that all that's wrong with mainstream American culture is working hard to tempt you into buying into it all. It's easier being the outsider. Easier for the ideological purity of it.

Remember, I live in Seattle now. Local alternative press was full of whining about how Pride is evil because ewww acceptance from icky normals.

Salix Babylonika · 2014-07-09 03:58:43

I've never heard of the website that's hosted on, so I have no real context for his statements.

My point is that I don't think there's anything wrong with reminding people that yes, marketing is inherently an insidious activity, and no, companies do not actually care about you except as potential profit. Capitalism of the scope that occurs in this country leads to an environment where that kind of reminder is warranted from time to time.

Morven said:
Granted, I am probably reading this with eyes that have seen too much oh-so-edgy nonsense along those lines. People too invested in being outsiders, being rebels. So maybe I'm reading more into it than is really there, I'll grant that.

And the fact is, being mainstream means that all that's wrong with mainstream American culture is working hard to tempt you into buying into it all. It's easier being the outsider. Easier for the ideological purity of it.

Remember, I live in Seattle now. Local alternative press was full of whining about how Pride is evil because ewww acceptance from icky normals.

I get where you're coming from but, well, see prior paragraph.

Morven · 2014-07-09 04:00:58

Seems that we don't actually disagree here ... shocking, innit.

Hexartes · 2014-07-09 04:01:14

Well, yeah, that's a reasonable thing to say. But I hesitate to call it entirely insidious either; I mean, even the horrible degenerates known as "marketers" have some capacity for human emotion; I don't doubt that there's an inkling of genuineness here. Granted, marketing is marketing, but there are worse ways to do it.

I think a better point to make is "Don't buy this because you think you're making a statement."

Salix Babylonika · 2014-07-09 04:04:38

Kexruct said:
Well, yeah, that's a reasonable thing to say. But I hesitate to call it entirely insidious either; I mean, even the horrible degenerates known as "marketers" have some capacity for human emotion; I don't doubt that there's an inkling of genuineness here. Granted, marketing is marketing, but there are worse ways to do it.

I think a better point to make is "Don't buy this because you think you're making a statement."

Insidious is a poor way to put it. I'm sorry, I'm a bit of a wannabe socialist lately.

In any case, I think that is the basic point being made. Rainbow-colored wrappers aren't ultimately going to help anyone.

Also the entire idea is just sort of dumb, isn't it?

Hexartes · 2014-07-09 04:07:25

Like I said, there are worse ways to market a burger. I'll take pandering to the LGBT community over pandering to the far-right. Hell, I'll take pandering to the LGBT community over most forms of pandering.

Salix Babylonika · 2014-07-09 04:08:59

AJ seems to run articles to this effect a lot. It's disheartening, to say the least.

Salix Babylonika · 2014-07-09 04:10:02

Kexruct said:
Like I said, there are worse ways to market a burger. I'll take pandering to the LGBT community over pandering to the far-right. Hell, I'll take pandering to the LGBT community over most forms of pandering.

That's true but like, in an ideal world, you just shouldn't pander.

I'd rather be sold food by being told it tastes good than by being told I'm supporting some sort of moral stance. On the flip side of the political spectrum, this is how Chick-fil-A makes most of their money.

Salix Babylonika · 2014-07-09 04:15:14

France continues to be a haven for surprising reactionism.

This would be like if the Tea Party somehow managed to pull sex ed out of every school that currently teaches it. Or perhaps not, but that is certainly how it seems.

Calica · 2014-07-09 04:21:25

Front National is depressingly popular over there, isn't it?

sunn wolf · 2014-07-09 06:36:10

Morven said:
As gay people become more accepted in America, companies will market to gay people more. This is a sign of success, not failure. And when those companies recognize that gay people are an important part of their market, they behave better on gay issues.

i think you have this kinda the wrong way round -- companies realise there are lot of very wealthy gay people, begin marketing to gay people, and then gay people become more accepted. obviously there is a tipping point of acceptability before that but i think a lot of progress particularly recently has come about through marketing rather than struggle

honestly peaceful protest used to be the way to go for a minority group to get rights and attention. now it just seems to be 'have enough money for corporations to make you into a demographic'

note that this is way, way better than being attacked in the street, discriminated against, having to hide the fact that i have a boyfriend etc etc etc and i am very glad that particularly in my country we have become so so much more gay friendly than we were even 10 yrs ago. but still this creates problems of its own such as the way homosexuality has become heavily associated with western consumerist culture in other parts of the world, and so anti-gay laws have become the go-to thing to do for any nationalist leader who fancies showing off how much they are fighting against american cultural imperialism

its complicated

One-Winged Eagle · 2014-07-09 08:55:59

It is pretty complicated.

Aliroz · 2014-07-09 10:27:12

Anonus said:

Morven said:
I am tired of people (largely too young to have experienced it) pining for the days of being more marginalized and hated and attacked.
I don't get that at all

As a brown-skinned person sometimes I am made uncomfortable by '50s or '60s nostalgia...

What I like about the fifties was not at all the things that were terrible about the fifties.

I like the Lone Ranger radio shows, Pogo, and things like that. I don't have to dislike everything about that decade because there were horrible things.

I mean, the wrongs of today don't mean I can't like certain things of this decade.

Though, I totally agree with you on the sixties. That was a terrible decade.

Anonus · 2014-07-09 17:52:11

I like things from the '50s and '60s too...of course they usually don't touch on the social ills of their era...

Klinotaxis · 2014-07-09 17:56:13

you know a lot of 50s and 60s stuff talked about racism or whatever. they just don't air it on TV now as much as inoffensive sitcoms is all

Anonus · 2014-07-09 17:57:01

what I meant was Hanna-Barbera cartoons and Rocky & Bullwinkle (though Peabody's Improbable History did at times have some nasty stereotypes)

Morven · 2014-07-09 17:58:58

I think also we tend to forget the social ills of earlier eras. American popular consciousness goes back to Pearl Harbor now, it seems; pre-World War 2 is a distant land.

My partner is partly of Romani blood, and has been researching her family history. She has it on both her mother's and her father's side; on both sides, the immigration was in the 1890s and at that point Romani immigration to the US was prohibited. Which explains why on both sides of the family, it was largely kept secret, and the language was lost among other things.

Obā-san · 2014-07-09 19:11:14

Aliroz · 2014-07-09 19:53:18

naney said:

Why'd they invite the invisible giraffe to dinner?

Sredni Vashtar · 2014-07-10 00:43:41

naney said:

Isn't this from Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?

Obā-san · 2014-07-10 00:48:10

yes, from the bit with the Gilbert The Invisible Giraffe cameo

Obā-san · 2014-07-10 00:51:08

huh, for some reason i remembered that it came out in like 62, not 67

i posted it because it was a thing that i remembered as being from the early 60s that dealt with racism that almost everyone has seen, but i guess it's from the late 60s so i feel a bit silly now

Sredni Vashtar · 2014-07-10 00:58:15

Eh, what we think of as "the 60's" was really the beginning of the 70's. Even the late 60's could be pretty 50's.

Anonus · 2014-07-10 01:01:47

never mind

Obā-san · 2014-07-10 01:06:13

Anonus this is a Talk thread.

lee4hmz · 2014-07-10 01:07:59

Yeah, the 1970s essentially began in 1968 or 1969. They didn't really end until about 1983. :P

Section42L · 2014-07-10 01:11:13

I tend to think the 1960s began around the time The Beatles released Rubber Soul, but I could be wrong.

lee4hmz · 2014-07-10 01:18:31

Yeah, culturally the overlap period was roughly between Elvis getting drafted and Beatlemania. Politically, it would have been JFK's administration.

lee4hmz · 2014-07-10 01:20:46

As for why I say the 1980s really began culturally in 1983...that's when electro started taking over from disco, New Wave influences started becoming mainstream, and the Second British Invasion started.

lee4hmz · 2014-07-10 01:21:51

E.T. came out in 1982, and it had a disco version of its theme song. I'm pretty sure it was one of the last ones, too.

Anonus · 2014-07-10 01:24:00

Why did disco die, anyway?

Klinotaxis · 2014-07-10 01:26:34

Disco Demolition Night killed it

lee4hmz · 2014-07-10 01:27:04

the 1980s started giving way to the 1990s politically when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and the transitional period ended with Clinton'a inauguration in 1993. Culturally....I'm not sure when the transition started, but it hit critical mass with Nevermind in 1991, and The Chronic in 1992. We were still getting a lot of hair metal and old-school party rap until those two albums dropped.

Obā-san · 2014-07-10 01:29:05

Anonus said:
Why did disco die, anyway?

Primarily homophobia and racism, (disco was originally made by and for gay and/or(most often and) black people) but also record labels were finding that disco was becoming expensive to produce because huge, lush arangements were becoming popular, and the market was hella oversaturated.

Sredni Vashtar · 2014-07-10 01:30:53

I sort of think of it in terms of musical eras: The early bebop period, the rise of rock 'n' roll, the psychedelic/mods vs. rockers period, the disco/prog/hard rock "anything goes" period, the punk explosion and the aftermath thereof, the long and tired death of New Pop's inbred descendants, the alternative revolutions and their long and tired tail end...

Nothing ends well in pop music, does it?

Sredni Vashtar · 2014-07-10 01:32:05

naney said:

Anonus said:
Why did disco die, anyway?
Primarily homophobia and racism, (disco was originally made by and for gay and/or(most often and) black people) but also record labels were finding that disco was becoming expensive to produce because huge, lush arangements were becoming popular, and the market was hella oversaturated.

Yeah.

It didn't really die so much as mutate into more synthy, aggressive or streamlined forms, however.

Obā-san · 2014-07-10 01:36:21

Sredni Vashtar said:

naney said:

Anonus said:
Why did disco die, anyway?
Primarily homophobia and racism, (disco was originally made by and for gay and/or(most often and) black people) but also record labels were finding that disco was becoming expensive to produce because huge, lush arangements were becoming popular, and the market was hella oversaturated.
Yeah.

It didn't really die so much as mutate into more synthy, aggressive or streamlined forms, however.

Sredni Vashtar · 2014-07-10 01:37:59

Exactly.

lee4hmz · 2014-07-10 01:38:23

The !990s definitely ended politically and socially on 9/11, but I'd say the beginning of the 2000s politically would have been the Lewinsky affair in 1998. Socially, I'm not quite sure.

Social Justice and Other Such Issues

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories