quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
I think the media's power is given them by the public. The media feeds the public what the public wants to eat.

---

I have yet to read the article in full, but I can note an agreement with this statement. I'm in an advertising class right now, and during the "Is advertising ethical?" discussion one of the points made against advertising is that it encourages materialism. My reply was, "Well, yeah, but that's because our culture is materialistic. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need advertising because we wouldn't have a need to encourage people to buy things."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
I have yet to read the article in full, but I can note an agreement with this statement. I'm in an advertising class right now, and during the "Is advertising ethical?" discussion one of the points made against advertising is that it encourages materialism. My reply was, "Well, yeah, but that's because our culture is materialistic. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need advertising because we wouldn't have a need to encourage people to buy things."

In short, the messages conveyed in mass-media are a direct reflection of the needs and desires of the population those media outlets serve.

---

By the same token, that doesn't absolve advertising of all culpability. There is, after all, such a thing as exacerbation. The fears and desires that advertising plays upon are certainly not created by them, but they are very definitely manipulated in an effort to sell products. I wouldn't hold advertising responsible for anorexia or megarexia, for example, but I would most definitely hold them responsible for exacerbating the issue by saturating my viewing space with idealized bodies. And it's not like I, as a consumer, ever give consent to seeing these images: they're inescapable: on radio, TV, the internet, by phone (telemarketing), even on the billboards I walk past on my way through the city. It's not one of those things that you can turn off. Which is why I especially like adman Terry O'Reilly's longtime saying: good ads should give something back to the viewer(s) (precisely because they are foisted upon us without our consent).

EDIT: Typo.
Edit 2: It's kind of like Jon Stewart's favourite New Jersey saying: "I'm not saying your mother's a *****, I'm just saying she has a lot of sex. For money."

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:

By the same token, that doesn't absolve advertising of all culpability. There is, after all, such a thing as exacerbation. The fears and desires that advertising plays upon are certainly not created by them, but they are very definitely manipulated in an effort to sell products. I wouldn't hold advertising responsible for anorexia or megarexia, for example, but I would most definitely hold them responsible for exacerbating the issue by saturating my viewing space with idealized bodies. And it's not like I, as a consumer, ever give consent to seeing these images: they're inescapable: on radio, TV, the internet, by phone (telemarketing), even on the billboards I walk past on my way through the city. It's not one of those things that you can turn off. Which is why I especially like adman Terry O'Reilly's longtime saying: good ads should give something back to the viewer(s) (precisely because they are foisted upon us without our consent).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
But nothing is 100% good for a person or society, as PD has inferred with some of his comments. A new policy that benefits the majority of Americans may have a cost many are unwilling or unable to pay; your medicines come with side effects; ownership of a house comes with the responsibility to fix it or it loses value. Advertising does do a lot of good, such as making magazines affordable. And while it is sometimes misleading or offensive, it can also be informative or comical when it wants to be (see many of the Super Bowl ads). So, I don't really see anything inherently evil with advertising, or anything wrong enough with it that it shouldn't be allowed, but it's certainly something that should be (and is) regulated.

---

The claims were never that advertising is evil, or that some things are 100% good or bad for society. Just that if we're playing the blame game, advertising truly does deserve its own share because it isn't only passive, it doesn't just feed on socio-cultural trends: it also creates them, and reinforces them. So while advertising isn't responsible for Switzerland's fear of Muslims, it's also shaping that discourse (in the wrong direction). It's the same with any other cultural practice, really.

Like I said, the only issue I have with what was said is that it can too easily lend itself to the Jon Stewart "New Jersey defense," according to which implication absolves you of all the guilt that outspokenness would otherwise attract. That, as far as I can see, is a fallacious line of reasoning. After all, I most definitely implied something (apparently) negative about your mother, didn't I?

EDIT: For the record, in case it wasn't clear, I haven't said anything about anyone's mother. That was an example, and my last line was a reference to the example. Just so we're on the same page.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

When there were the attack on World Trade Center, all the medias talked about were terrorists and islam. People start to link all Islam to terrorism, which is false (right?). Can we blame them though? Critical mind come with greater education. And I dare anyone to say that majority of Americans, or Canadians have that sort of education.

Some scandals can be amplified. See Tiger Woods. Not saying he isn't guilty or whatever (I don't even know what he does in life, except he plays golf). Clearly, that information received way too much attention. Even I heard about it (and I usually don't read any magazine or paparazzi)

Excellent points, one and all. But there are more than 100...

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think they will sing to me." -T.S. Eliot

RIP Ari

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
I'm shocked
/sarcasm

1) Is anyone shocked by this?
2) Both parties do it, the GOP was the party dumb enough to get caught
3) I doubt it affects fund raising much, if at all.

---

Or the opinions of either side, really. The people who would be riled up by such images already hate Obama and will continue to regardless of what the Republican party does; likewise, everyone who thought the Reps were as bad as the monsters they portray Obama to be will continue to think that way. quick note: I'm in both camps portrayed in the previous sentence, finding both parties critically wrong on many key issues The few people on the fence were either smart enough to know both parties do this, or dumb enough that they'll get fooled by the messages when they're released anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranderas:
Or the opinions of either side, really. The people who would be riled up by such images already hate Obama and will continue to regardless of what the Republican party does; likewise, everyone who thought the Reps were as bad as the monsters they portray Obama to be will continue to think that way. quick note: I'm in both camps portrayed in the previous sentence, finding both parties critically wrong on many key issues The few people on the fence were either smart enough to know both parties do this, or dumb enough that they'll get fooled by the messages when they're released anyway.

---

The sad thing is that most of the people the GOP is trying to pander to and get money from left the party because they started spending money like Democrats when they had full control, and they helped crash the economy. The GOP having to use scare tactics for fund raising shows that the party, much like the Dems, is still out of touch with the American people. All they had to do was show potential doners a list of all the money Obama is spending and the parts of his agenda that will increase te size of the government, and they would open their wallets.

Will either party ever listen to the people?
(to answer my own question, doubtful)

quote:

---

Originally said by Tom Hanks:
"The war in the Pacific (WWII) was one of racism and terror."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
And I guess Pearl Harbor was about race and terror too huh Tom? <censored><censored><censored><censored>

---

It was, the war that is. On both sides. To deny that there wasn't massive amounts of terror and racism in the Pacific theater is ignorant...and par for the course from you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
It was, the war that is. On both sides. To deny that there wasn't massive amounts of terror and racism in the Pacific theater is ignorant

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
Except that's not what Hanks was saying. He said the war in the Pacific was DRIVEN by racism and terror, which it was not. We went after Japan because of their attack on Pearl Harbor, NOT because they were Japanese. He also said that the 'kill 'em all', for lack of a better word, stretegy we had to use was also because of racism. That too had nothing to do with racism. We had to kill them all because the Japanese wouldn't surrender.

---

Read this and this and this and this and tell me that racism had nothing to do with the events that led up to Pearl Harbor.

__________________
Stages of Death: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance, Burial, Decay, Haunting, Revenge, Evil Laugh

quote:

---

Originally posted by Battle_of_Twits:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by skizzikmonger:
Except that's not what Hanks was saying. He said the war in the Pacific was DRIVEN by racism and terror, which it was not. We went after Japan because of their attack on Pearl Harbor, NOT because they were Japanese. He also said that the 'kill 'em all', for lack of a better word, stretegy we had to use was also because of racism. That too had nothing to do with racism. We had to kill them all because the Japanese wouldn't surrender.

---

[/QUOTE]

While there was undoubtedly an undercurrent of racism running through the US during the the Second world war, it is difficult to imagine the US becoming involved in the war if Pearl Harbour had not taken place.

From the Japanese point of view, racism as a contributing factor to Pearl Harbour seems much less significant than a desire for hegemony in the Pacific and the mistaken belief that this could be achieved after one quick strike.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kung_Fuscious:
While there was undoubtedly an undercurrent of racism running through the US during the the Second world war, it is difficult to imagine the US becoming involved in the war if Pearl Harbour had not taken place.

From the Japanese point of view, racism as a contributing factor to Pearl Harbour seems much less significant than a desire for hegemony in the Pacific and the mistaken belief that this could be achieved after one quick strike.

---

Hegemony of what kind?

It was a fairly well documented that American soldiers would collect the gold teeth that many Japanese soldiers had, often from wounded or even just prisoners.

War Without Mercy: Race in the pacific war is an excellent book on this subject. Both sided dehumanized each other to the point that they both treated them like ****.The scene i described was documented by war correspondents, and it was pretty bad. He just used his knife to cut them out of the poor guy who was just laying there from a belly wound.

I also just got done reading Helmet for my Pillow (one of the books this series that Hanks was promoting is based on) and this was talked about at length. One guy in particular they called "Souvenirs" because he was obsessed with collecting stuff off of dead or even badly wounded Japanese soldiers. He kept all the teeth in a little pouch that hung around his neck.

That being said the Japanese did similar things.

It's a shame that the war has been white-washed into a "good guys vs. bad guys" mythology - I'm proud that my relatives fought in the war, but its not something that should be glorified and exalted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kung_Fuscious:
While there was undoubtedly an undercurrent of racism running through the US during the the Second world war, it is difficult to imagine the US becoming involved in the war if Pearl Harbour had not taken place.

From the Japanese point of view, racism as a contributing factor to Pearl Harbour seems much less significant than a desire for hegemony in the Pacific and the mistaken belief that this could be achieved after one quick strike.

---

Um, you realize the US Navy was fighting an undeclared war with germany long before pearl harbour? War was pretty much inevitable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
Hegemony of what kind?

It was a fairly well documented that American soldiers would collect the gold teeth that many Japanese soldiers had, often from wounded or even just prisoners.

War Without Mercy: Race in the pacific war is an excellent book on this subject. Both sided dehumanized each other to the point that they both treated them like ****.The scene i described was documented by war correspondents, and it was pretty bad. He just used his knife to cut them out of the poor guy who was just laying there from a belly wound.

I also just got done reading Helmet for my Pillow (one of the books this series that Hanks was promoting is based on) and this was talked about at length. One guy in particular they called "Souvenirs" because he was obsessed with collecting stuff off of dead or even badly wounded Japanese soldiers. He kept all the teeth in a little pouch that hung around his neck.

That being said the Japanese did similar things.

It's a shame that the war has been white-washed into a "good guys vs. bad guys" mythology - I'm proud that my relatives fought in the war, but its not something that should be glorified and exalted.

---

I totally agree that the war in the Pacific was as you suggest above - however I would argue that the causes of US and Japanese involvement did not stem from racism. By Japanese hegemony I meant the Japanese sought to bring the Pacific under their own sphere of influence - the US would not have become involved in a war in the Pacific had Pearl Harbour not taken place.
However what I don't know about the war in the Pacific could fill several hundred books so please feel free to correct me.

quote:

---

Um, you realize the US Navy was fighting an undeclared war with germany long before pearl harbour? War was pretty much inevitable.

---

A good point - to play devil's advocate again would the US have become involved in a European conflict had Hitler not declared war? Roosevelt might have been in favour of involving the US but there was plenty of isolationism in Congress. As a point of discussion, is it possible that if Hitler had not declared war on the US, it was more likely that the US would have been forced to suspend lend lease and stop escorting convoys across the Atlantic rather than get involved in the war?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kung_Fuscious:
[B]I totally agree that the war in the Pacific was as you suggest above - however I would argue that the causes of US and Japanese involvement did not stem from racism.

---

The cause of the war is not always what the war is about. Think Vietnam and WWI. The cause of the war was the sinking of specific ships or attacks on them. The war was about something totally different. The same happened in WWII.

quote:

---

By Japanese hegemony I meant the Japanese sought to bring the Pacific under their own sphere of influence - the US would not have become involved in a war in the Pacific had Pearl Harbour not taken place.
However what I don't know about the war in the Pacific could fill several hundred books so please feel free to correct me.

---

The US, specifically Roosevelt, wanted to get involved in WWII and took steps to agitate the Japanese into the war, mainly by giving supplies and aid to countries fighting the Japanese either officially or unofficially and the major move of cutting of oil. This is not to say that the Japanese and America would have not gone to war. They were going to have a clash sooner or later this just sped up the process, probably to the advantage of America.

quote:

---

A good point - to play devil's advocate again would the US have become involved in a European conflict had Hitler not declared war? Roosevelt might have been in favour of involving the US but there was plenty of isolationism in Congress. As a point of discussion, is it possible that if Hitler had not declared war on the US, it was more likely that the US would have been forced to suspend lend lease and stop escorting convoys across the Atlantic rather than get involved in the war?

---

I disagree. The lend lease act, and just general trading with the involved combatants, had Americans corporations making bank there's no way they would want to suspend supplies to both sides of the war. However, Hitler did have long term plans to invade America and there were designed of weapons of war to felicitate this invasion. Once Germany declared war on the US, American corporations immediately stopped trading with Germany and some had their assets seized under the trading with the enemy act.

[/end WWII chat]

Seriously 38% believe that Obama was doing the same stuff Hitler did? Like beyond eating, sleeping, getting a response with his speeches and owning a dog I really don't see that much a comparison. Anyone know if Obama paints?

quote:

---

Originally posted by super324:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-22/scary-new-gop-poll/

Seriously 38% believe that Obama was doing the same stuff Hitler did? Like beyond eating, sleeping, getting a response with his speeches and owning a dog I really don't see that much a comparison. Anyone know if Obama paints?

---