ilovefuzz.com

Gluten Free? What's that mean? 0 calories?

$harkToootth wrote:Gluten Free? What's that mean? 0 calories?

Stop worrying about gluten free, you can simply sprinkle this on your food:

https://thrivemarket.com/p/bobs-red-mil ... eat-gluten

karmablock wrote:I always thought this place was very liberal. Maybe not the most PC place but very tolerant anyway. But I have seen people bashing feminism and other "PC/liberal" ideas so maybe this place is changing

It all depends on what you are referring to. We are all human and share the same capacity for success, expression if intellect, etc as well as the capacity to fail in our reasoning. It’s just that the recent ideological spewings coming from certain liberal - actually now illiberal - circles is backward and as devoid of reason as a lot of viewpoints coming from the far right.

I’d say the alt-right and black lives matter/antifa, etc have a lot in common. Funny how each side doesn’t see that.

Identity politics needs to die.

This recent article by Steven Pinker sums it up well:


http://www.weeklystandard.com/steven-pi ... le/2011595#!

Another good read is George Orwell's 1984.

Faldoe wrote:I’d say the alt-right and black lives matter/antifa, etc have a lot in common. Funny how each side doesn’t see that.

well, other than the thing where BLM is objectively correct ant the alt-Right is objectively wrong...

i don't love the kind of stuff that Antifa gets into on the West Coast with the pointless window-breaking and so on...i think it makes the opposition look bad. i'm not a fan of anarchists anyway. but for me it was a good thing they were here in Charlottesville to fuck up the Nazis.

Ugly Nora wrote:Any agendas or lobbying they may do, are not their end game. The end game is to make money and if lobbying or agendas help them make money, then they will do it.

Does this really matter though? The result is the same, regardless of their motivation. If a company is doing bad shit for some agenda or just for profit, bad shit is still being done. I'm not sure any rationale or alternative motive makes "buy toobs cause boobs" less douchey on the company's behalf, and I think this applies to bigger picture shit too like environmental regulations.

cherler wrote:

Ugly Nora wrote:Any agendas or lobbying they may do, are not their end game. The end game is to make money and if lobbying or agendas help them make money, then they will do it.

Does this really matter though? The result is the same, regardless of their motivation. If a company is doing bad shit for some agenda or just for profit, bad shit is still being done. I'm not sure any rationale or alternative motive makes "buy toobs cause boobs" less douchey on the company's behalf, and I think this applies to bigger picture shit too like environmental regulations.

My position has been and will always be that most companies exist to make money. Period. If you read my previous posts, I was not stating that this was good or bad. I was simply stating it as a fact. So whether or not "Does this really matter though" is really not relevant to the point I was making, and the point that I was attacked for.

Think about it like this...say you have a company like mentioned by Lurker13 who use lobbying or whatever to increase their profits. If they had to decide between either making money without lobbying, or making no money and only exist to continue to push some social agenda, what option do you think they would choose? In other words, do they care more about making money, or do they care more about pushing whatever social agenda they were pushing that was helping them make money?

This is why this entire thread is beyond hilarious, because I stated that companies exist to make money (a pretty "no shit Sherlock" statement). I made no statement either way whether that was a good or bad thing. But that gardenofthedead kid lost their shit because it was a different view then they had and thus pulled all sorts of conclusions from this like I am anti women or anti liberal etc.. And I've yet to see any valid arguments showing that most companies don't exist to make money. Someone please tell me why my statement " most companies exist to make money" is an incorrect statement.

It's not incorrect, just kind of irrelevant

If a company is doing something worth speaking out against, it doesn't really matter if they're doing it to make money or to support some agenda. They're still doing something worth speaking out against.

You've explicitly said your only point is that companies exist to make money, so I'll take you at your word, but making that point in this context carries a pretty strong implication that this fact should exonerate the company in some way. Since your point isn't to make a quality judgement or defend the companies, then my question is why is the fact that companies exist to make money relevant in a conversation calling out bad practices?

If the point is to redirect blame towards the consumers who make these bad practices profitable, then I could get behind that about halfway. They definitely take a lot of blame. However, the company is still the entity actively enacting bad practices, regardless of motivation.

It was a relevant fact in the discussion we were having shown below in which Chank said they were surprised companies still did this, to which gardenofthedead stated they did it because it was a conspiracy against women. So, I calmly replied that maybe there isn't a conspiracy, and rather that they are doing it because it makes them money - which is the primary goal of a company. See below for yourself if you don't believe me.

So, if you would indulge me, please tell me how that is not relevant to the to the statements I replied to, and if you care to also speak for gotd since they've seem to vanish from their own thread , tell me how that is an offensive statement against women or liberals.

Ugly Nora wrote:

GardenoftheDead wrote:

Chankgeez wrote:What is surprising is that companies are still running ads like that in this day and age.

It's cause musical instrument companies think women are only like 12% of the market, but as fender found out when they actually did real market research we're actually 50% shock of shocks.

and cause you know, the country is owned by wretched old white dudes who don't care if they're sexist or not cause they already have your money and your rights.

Maybe they are doing it for far less nefarious reasons, like it sells gear? You don't think a company is smart enough to know which of their ads generate the most sales? Music companies exist to make money, not to be champions of the liberal PC agenda.

In summary, as long as their ads drive sales, they are going to keep doing it. When it stops working, they will shift strategies.

I think both Chank's question and Garden's response were somewhat rhetorical, but I might be off base there.

I also think using the phrase "liberal PC agenda," which basically only shows up in agitated posts complaining about liberals, is what came off as a statement against women or liberals. That combined with the implicit defense of the company carried by the context/timing of the post (and implications definitely shouldn't be the point anyone hangs their hat on, especially on a forum).

I'm not sure I can agree that companies actually have that much of a handle on how effective their ads are either. I'm not sure advertising is a very scientific pursuit.

That's not a "conspiracy against women" though, that's a statement addressing a rather all pervasive mindset in which things are often automatically assumed to be outside a particular individual's reach or area of interest/expertise based on genitalia.

It is a well illustrated fact that people with dangly bits in the front of their trousers can have huge blind spots regarding those who don't, and even if they are doing demographic research the blind spot will carry forward, similar to the wholesale dismissal of certain arguments here and anywhere else on the internet. It's also well documented that when anyone brings this disparity up, a pack of swinging dicks is almost fucking eager to get in a brawl about it.

So if that ad shows the blind spot....does that mean....are we.....are we the swinging dicks?

cherler wrote:I think both Chank's question and Garden's response were somewhat rhetorical, but I might be off base there.

I also think using the phrase "liberal PC agenda," which basically only shows up in agitated posts complaining about liberals, is what came off as a statement against women or liberals. That combined with the implicit defense of the company carried by the context/timing of the post (and implications definitely shouldn't be the point anyone hangs their hat on, especially on a forum).

I'm not sure I can agree that companies actually have that much of a handle on how effective their ads are either. I'm not sure advertising is a very scientific pursuit.

Specially addressing your comment "I also think using the phrase "liberal PC agenda," which basically only shows up in agitated posts complaining about liberals, is what came off as a statement against women or liberals"....

It has been my experience that any social equality movements, whether it be women's rights, gay rights, or any minority group's rights, is associated with and championed by liberals as a opposed to conservatives. Can we at least agree on that? If we do agree on that, doesn't it make a statement such as "liberal pc agenda" an accurate one since these types of agendas are most associated with liberals? And if it is true that these types of agendas are most closely associated with liberals, and these agenda's are seen as "good things" by most liberals, how is that statement negative towards liberals?

I think what the more likely scenario is here, is that you have people who look for any opportunity to feel offended and lash out at any perceived injustice, no matter if it is justified or not. Rustywire referenced Hanlon's razor in the other thread which states "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" which is exactly what I said in my posts (albeit less succinctly). Sorry folks, but not everything is a big conspiracy against (insert downtrodden group of the hour here).

You're right, in the strictest sense it's just a description of a specific set of ideals. However, seeing that phrase and similar phrases can be red flags that it's finally time to unfollow your mildly homophobic uncle facebook. As of now I can only think of two contexts I've seen them: this whole ordeal here, and angry conservative rants. I think that's a pretty common experience and why people were so quick to throw you into an anti-liberal camp.

To your last point, again I'm not sure it's important if it's a conspiracy or just out of touch marketing. If they are just unaware, then it's likely that they just don't give a shit.

cherler wrote:So if that ad shows the blind spot....does that mean....are we.....are we the swinging dicks?