haters of advertising = haters of freedom

[teq the decider]

One of the most common traits amongst adherents of socialist doctrine is a fervent opposition to the concept of advertising. Its alleged subversive power is vociferously condemned for its inspiration of certian qualities(specific qualities being inimical to socialism) and erosion of other qualities(specific qualitites necessary for socialism to function*). If only the peoples will were not so egregiously corrupted by the dark forces of advertising then "enter variant of socialism here" would be freely adopted by all.

Interesting but just how subversive and powerful is this subversive power? I having developed an interest in technology at an early age have been familiar with apple for a good number of years. The amount of apple advertising I have been exposed to in this time is so considerable as to be beyond a reasonable estimate. Despite this I have never purchased a single apple product. In contrast with this my favourite take out is an establishment which I have never seen advertised in any capacity beyond its name sign above the door. The cause of this? Simply, I like the take out and dislike apple.

Get that fucktards? people consume things because they like them and not because theyve been manipulated. Advertising in the main is about targetting certain information at individuals already predisposed to it. It is responsive in nature. You do not sell a product by cobbling together any old shit and then trying to manipulate people into buying it. You create something to address an existing demand and then try and get the information to potential consumers. Even then all the advertising in the world is not going to grant success to an inferior product as any number of high profile flops illustrates.

This talk about the supposed corruptive influence of advertising, "consumer culture" and the rest of that bullshit is itself an attempt at a dual deception. Firstly it is a self-deception. It serves to keep erect an ideology(and just as regularly a sense of superiority) that reality will not support. Secondly it is propoganda. It is an effort to get individuals to relinquish their freedom by convincing them theirs is false. It succeddes as self deception but only succeddes in the second in the sense it does as the first. The only individuals it attracts are those with a desire to elevate themselves above their fellow men and in need of a lie to stand on.


vaunted champion of freedom Ronald Mcdonald


di••••able burger theif and almost certain communist Hamburglar


what we'd all be drinking right now if socialists knew what the fuck they were talking about


*:to function as well as it can at least. Even in the event of full willfull compliance of the populace there exist numerous systematic problems which prevent efficient production.

[identity-X]

empirical study after empirical study shows otherwise...not that it's a dark force that corrupsts every person who comes in contact with advertisements on a daily basis (i.e. everyone), but that it has real effects on behaviors, desires to consume, etc.

outside of any larger temporal or historical context this is neither bad nor good.



and really, what's you're larger beef? if people don't want to agree with these socialists they will based on their own free will...not because they've been manipulated...

right?

[Anidawehi]

Your stupidity knows no boundaries, Teq.

Either you are trying to intentionally invert reality or you're just that dumb. The constant promotion of consumerism is social conditioning. That inhibits liberty.

Not being able to avoid the advertising machine is a common problem today.
You turn off your television and it's on the radio. Turn off the radio and it's on the internet news sites. Turn off the computer and drive across town and it's on the billboards. It's everywhere and it's fuckin brainwashing.

Just stop while you're behind.

[holla!]

so your solution to providing greater freedom is to forceably restrict peoples ability to view or not view advertisments HA HA HA HA

[Anidawehi]

Who said that?

I just believe there should be limits. Otherwise within 20 years our entire existence is going to be wrapped around consuming worthless shit to distract ourselves from the fact that we're all living completely meaningless lives.

[Anidawehi]

Believe it or not, there was a time when there was more to life than buying shit.

[identity-X]

fuck limits...

there needs to be a massive restructuring of our culture

[holla!]

not only are you conceited straight up but your judgemental. just because you think the world is about purchasing shit makes it so? get your head right you're lost.

[Anidawehi]

Identity X - Everything in its time. That time is fast approaching.

Holla - You're probably right, I'm the one who's lost. It isn't absolutely everywhere, it's just my imagination. People don't judge each other by the clothes they are or are not wearing. People don't judge each other by the cars that they drive or how good looking their girlfriend/boyfriend is. People don't judge each other at all. It's all in my head.

[teq the decider]

Originally Posted by identity-X

empirical study after empirical study shows otherwise...not that it's a dark force that corrupsts every person who comes in contact with advertisements on a daily basis (i.e. everyone), but that it has real effects on behaviors, desires to consume, etc.

outside of any larger temporal or historical context this is neither bad nor good.

You are truely a dolt. If people are provided with a great deal of information then the tendency is for it to affect their behaviour to some degree. The argument is not that advertising doesnt affect behaviour(if it didnt companies would hardly be spending billions on it) but that the process by which this occurs is completely mistated by socialists for the purposes I highlighted.

Socialists are prone to describing the effect of advertising as something akin to a chemical reaction. As if on expoure to it there begins an automatic chain of events that the individual is simply held hostage to. Azeus provides a crudely articulated iteration of this rhetoric in his post. This is all part of a wider effort to infantalise people so as to gradually eat away at their liberty. The banning of trans fats is an example of this in action. The 'paternal' state if left unchecked will slowly exploit the prejudices of the majority by limiting the freedoms of various minority groups 'for their own good' until finally group by group we all end up in thralldom.

and really, what's you're larger beef? if people don't want to agree with these socialists they will based on their own free will...not because they've been manipulated...

right?

1. there is an obvious distinction between claiming certain information can simply overwhelm peoples critical faculties by virtue of it being intended to sell something and pointing out a specific example of attempted manipulation as such.

2. Of course there are very few people who are knowingly going to give up their freedom. The problem is that in a democracy it is majority rule and whilst individuals believe in their own right to liberty, and their ability to use it prudently, they very rarely exend this belief very far beyond themselves. There is a tendency for people to see sheep all around them and on this ground assume themselves to be the sheppard. As ive already said in a democracy there is the propensity for the majority to afford the state more and more power in order to suppress certain minority activities until finally the state controls more or less everything. This slow creep to totalitarianism is clearly apparent in all democratic societies and it is unfortunately only ever checked by a calamity of some sort. It is my hope that by sonning the fuck out of socialists with the deobonair flair I can break this needless cycle.

[menaz]

It's like a rapper advertising himself in a Thug music market.
People might be into Thug music, but if his tracks aren't bumping
no amount of his advertising schemes are going to bamboolze people into fucking with his music. Therefore, commercialism is nothing more than free market. However, our Free will decides what commericalism we'll dabble in the free market.

Even a Bill board with a bussiness logo or name on it, Though may not be a franchise, is still commercializing a new advertisment on the open market. The Influence that non-franchise billboard has on you is foreign to you at first therefore a new dinning experence is plausible, it will entice you away from normality such as e.g. Taco bell, mccdonalds, burger king, chinese food, pizza. Hell, your new dinning experence might even captivate your taste buds so you never return to the mainstream examples I mentioned. Matter a fact, that new Advertisement probably keept you from eating yourself to a heart attack.

what I said is true about marketing and advertising. However, Inoder to have marketing and advertising bussiness must realize the product needs to serve an acutal expansionary purpose. You can have all the marketing and advertising you want, and yeah you might sell a few things on the first day, but like in any industry once people test it out and don't like what you've promoted your bussniess will go belly up. Why? Because the product didn't live up to the hype.

I actual have boardcasting degree, Inwhich I was forced to study marketing. For instants a said company will break people down into demographics (western, urban, rock, metal.etc..) and (stereotype advertsing) to fit those spefic genres statistics. Because in marketing people are not human they are numbers. Moreover, If all the statistics in the Western music market dry up so does the advertising. (e.i, The advertising will reevent itself in another popular market.)



My Point is, It's no different than a Person choosing between which fruit they'll buy at the market. It's all advertisied to the customer, Some might venture and try a new fruit, but the majority will stick with what they like best. Which no amount of advertising can sway. It's a crap shoot, advertisers throw their dice, and hope for the best.

Apples I-pod, was marketed well, However microsofts I-pod-copy-cat was marketed well also. Yet people are sticking with the apple I-pod. WHY? Number 1.) because the I-pod came out first. Number 2.) Apple I-pod has the loyal customer advantage. Number 3.) The Apple I-pod is probably better than the microsoft I-pod. And in this country people don't care for knock offs. Now if Apple I-pod turns to shit and mircosoft captializes on this, They'll control the market of how people listen to music for the future just like how mircosoft now controls the playstation and nintendo gaming makert. But in the end it's all really up to the customer liking the product a said company provided which will determain the outcome.

[Leila Night]

Haters of freedom? Very Dubya.

Originally Posted by teq the decider

Socialists are prone to describing the effect of advertising as something akin to a chemical reaction.

Socialists or socialogists?
I've never heard either claim the like.

And is your argument that Mcdonald's 'food' is good?

[teq the decider]

Originally Posted by Leila Night

Haters of freedom? Very Dubya.

Socialists or socialogists?
I've never heard either claim the like.

And is your argument that Mcdonald's 'food' is good?

this is man talk.

[Leila Night]

What is "man talk" and what happened to your pretentious vocab?

[teq the decider]

man talk is not so much different from woman talk except that it is important, interesting and sophisticated. I am sorry if youre intimidated by my manly vocabulary. Unfortunately the medium of internet discourse prevents me from communicating in a series of disparetly pitched giggles as is typically favoured by your gender.

[menaz]

It's obvious you didn't comprehend teq's apothegm.

You are not of our ilk, Therefore this is selective Ilk talk.