Exposing the Subtle and Blatant Ways in Which the Media Seeks to Denigrate, Humiliate, and Ultimately Exterminate People of European or Caucasian Descent, One Image at a Time.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Blonde Girls and Black Guys Know What You Don't
Here's a blast from the past. It's Anti-White Propaganda disguised as an Office Depot commercial, circa 2002.
Ok, so you're an over-the-hill white guy. Where to turn for answers? Sure, you've got a lot of questions. As a white guy, you're a little slow on the uptake. But if Office Depot had their way, you would put your trust in smokin' hot blonde professional figure skaters and black guys. Call it a team of insight. They, and they alone, in tandem, would be able to solve all your problems and answer your many questions.
They'll try not to be too smug about it. I mean, what else might they expect but incompetence from a lazy, uncool, balding, overweight, dorky, moronic, slovenly, square, vacuous, dead-eyed, pasty-skinned, white guy?
Boycott: Office Depot
How ridiculous. Based on high school dropout rates, black males are the least likely people to end up being "experts" in anything. But agenda trumps reality when you're drinking the multicult kool-aid.
ReplyDelete"But agenda trumps reality when you're drinking the multicult kool-aid."
ReplyDeleteExactly.
"You can ax Myspace with an all in one"
ReplyDeleteWait, so a commercial that portrays a white woman as knowledgeable is anti-white? Every time I think your analyses can't get worse, you surprise me!
ReplyDelete"uncool, balding, overweight"
And wait, the uncool guy is bald and overweight! So we've eliminated the possibility that this commercial is anti-white because the knowledgeable woman is white, but it could well be anti-bald (note the Office Depot employee is not bald, he just has a shaved head), and anti-overweight! Horror! All bald people and overweight people must BOYCOTT Office Depot!!! Right?
Wait, so a commercial that portrays a white woman as knowledgeable is anti-white? Every time I think your analyses can't get worse, you surprise me!
ReplyDeleteDuh!?
Because the ad posits the idea that white women in alliance with non-white men will be able to take care of business. IThe ad is there to remind men and women of all races who white women should belong to - non-white men. Irobnically its only in white countries that white women can be used to emasculate (white) men. Where are all the non-white countries where women hold power? Do remind us.
With white men out of the way white women will be the chattels they are in the rest of the world.
Its funny. After years of cultural marxists and liberals deconstructing every media product in sight. Its the patriarchy, racists, establishment, elites etc etc Yet when the boot is on the other foot we are supposed to suddenly take all this stuff at face value. ie there is no agenda other than selling whatever crap Office Deot are selling. Well, sorry pal, waaaay too late to try that angle.
"Its the patriarchy, racists, establishment, elites etc etc Yet when the boot is on the other foot we are supposed to suddenly take all this stuff at face value."
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis! It is so funny that these touchy feely "anti"s and liberals have so much of a problem with us deconstructing their New World Order videos. Ironically, of course, I learned meny of these deconstructionist tricks from Mommy Prof at Libtard University. They don't like it when we use their own weaponry against them!
"Because the ad posits the idea that white women in alliance with non-white men will be able to take care of business."
ReplyDeleteSo an ad must show white women and non-white men screwing up their jobs in order not to be anti-white. You guys dig a deeper hole for yourself to climb out of with every extra comment.
The thing is, if they replaced the knowledgeable white woman with a knowledgeable black woman, you would still complain that the ad is anti-white ("Oh no! The white needs help from two blacks!"). Or if they kept the knowledgeable white woman but replaced the uncool white man with an uncool black man, you would again complain that the ad is anti-white. ("Oh no! The white exists only to please the black customer!") In other words, the problem is in your minds, not in the ad.
Here's a test that some of the slower commenters here can try if they can't seem to grok the point:
ReplyDeleteReverse the roles. Imagine if there were an endless parade of ads portraying black men as slovenly old idiots mocked and shown up by young quick witted white men. Don't forget - we're not talking about one ad like this, we're talking about ad after ad after ad (as this site demonstrates). And then add in another seemingly endless series of ads where black women are swept off their feet by white men. Try these two examples for starters.
We all know people would have a problem with stereotyping like that. People would say there's an agenda at work. And yet with things flipped back around to the way they are, it's suddenly "racist" to object to such ads? We're calling bullshit on that.
See, it's not nearly as difficult to understand as you slower types seem to want to make it. Just apply the "role reversal test" and spare us the histrionics. There are other ways to get attention on the internet.
"Reverse the roles. Imagine if there were an endless parade of ads portraying black men as slovenly old idiots mocked and shown up by young quick witted white men. Don't forget - we're not talking about one ad like this, we're talking about ad after ad after ad"
ReplyDeleteExcellent point!
Ok, let's reverse the roles with this ad. Uncool black man gets helped by knowledgeable black woman plus white man. Negative black portrayal neutralized by positive black portrayal. Verdict: not anti-black.
ReplyDeleteWhat was your point again?
We'll try it again for the slower learners amongst us:
ReplyDeletePortray uncool, dumb, slovenly old black guys shown up by a young hip white guys many times over, in ad after ad, over and over. Sure throw in having them shown up by young black women too from time to time, why not?
People would start to notice a certain hostility towards black men. People would object.
Now flip it around in your mind, if you can, and see if you can get the point of the post (and the whole blog for that matter). Let's see if you can fight your way off the short bus.
"uncool, dumb, slovenly old black guys"
ReplyDelete"shown up by a young hip white guys"
"shown up by young black women"
According to your own words, both uncool and cool have black representation, therefore the ad is not anti-black. Also, both cool and uncool have male representation, therefore the ad is not anti-male. If the ad is anti-anything, it is ANTI-OLD, since both the cool people are young and the uncool person is old.
What was your point again?
The "shoe on the other foot" scenario makes perfect sense for people who think objectively. But the reality is, he doesn't. And the shoe isn't on HIS foot, so he doesn't give a shit. Mention 'Stepin Fetchit' and he WOULD give a shit.
ReplyDeleteAll your attempts to make him understand is a waste of time. He gets it! He just doesn't care.
It's a matter of tribalism. And his tribe is being placed on top in the media, at the expense of a tribe that he holds a deep seated and generationaly established animosity toward. He certainly can see so no wrong in that.
He is also confident in the knowledge that a black run media would NEVER portray black men as stupid ugly slobs. Nor would they pair pretty black women with handsome white men.
And he knows that if the white run media consistently did that, the black community, along with the NAACP, the Black Caucus and other black organizations established solely to promote and protect Black self-interest would rise up and put a stop to it 'by any means necessary'.
In the struggle for black racial empowerment through the social engineering of public opinion, he is essentially sitting back in the comfort of his easy-chair in front of the TV watching his white male nemesis place black men on pedestals of glorification, while placing themselves in the part of the idiot jesters.
The fact that it is the men of the very tribe he dislikes that is doing it all, at their very own expense, is a source of endless hours of joy and satisfaction, mixed with moments of amused bewilderment at all the white self-deprecation. To him it only reaffirms the message of the self-hating white media is trying to tell him: 'White people really are stupid'.
He knows that this is something no other race would do. And he likes it that way. Why would he see something that is to his own benefit at the expense of his enemy, as a problem worth noting, let alone putting a stop to?
Believe me, he gets it.
Note how in a reversed scenario - cool white male, cool black female, uncool black male - the only person who is uncool is the black male.
ReplyDeleteBeing black isn't enough to push a person over the threshold of coolness into uncool territory. Being male isn't enough enough either. But combined together, being black AND being male does combine to make a person sufficiently uncool.
Now reverse the roles and you get the Office Depot ad.
Thanks to the white female figure skater it's hard to say that it's anti-white (which isn't to say it's impossible when you consider the wider context of such advertising - just a bit more difficult). What is quite easy to say is that it's anti-white male. Again, it's the combination of being white AND male which makes the white guy the uniquely uncool figure.
It's worth adding that this is more or less the exact point that the original post made.
"What is quite easy to say is that it's anti-white male. Again, it's the combination of being white AND male which makes the white guy the uniquely uncool figure."
ReplyDeleteBut why not say it is anti-old, or anti-overweight, or anti-bald? That's my point: all these are clear-cut features exclusive to the uncool character, yet you are IGNORING all these features and zooming in on what you want to zoom in on, despite neither whiteness or maleness alone being exclusive to the uncool character.
Basically, a stronger case can be made for the ad being any one of anti-old, anti-overweight or anti-bald, and a weaker case for the ad being anti-white-male (and, incidentally, no case at all for the ad being anti-white). Talking about the weaker case and ignoring the stronger cases is not following the evidence where it leads, but following your own paranoia.
No, no, no... stay on topic please, if you can. My argument has been that we can apply a simple role reversal test as a possible standard for seeing if there's any stereotyping, racism, etc. involved here.
ReplyDeleteI think most people would agree that if the roles were reversed in a series of ads such that black males were portrayed as uncool over and over, there would be howls of condemnation.
Are you saying that you would tell those black males that they are just being paranoid?
That's fine if you would... let's hear you say it :)
"Are you saying that you would tell those black males that they are just being paranoid?"
ReplyDeleteYes, I would tell them they were just being paranoid. (Especially if they think it is about race, since the ad clearly shows cool blacks as well as uncool blacks.)
Just like I would tell old people, overweight people and bald people that they are paranoid if they thought the ad was attacking them.
And just like I tell you that you are paranoid.
PART ONE
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you start out by repeating a claim you made earlier - that in my reversed scenario the ad can't be anti-black because of the black female figure. I already answered this claim by pointing out that the ad isn't anti-black, it's anti-black male, which then, when you reverse the roles, makes it an anti-white male ad (exactly what the OP argues).
So you need to either answer my counter argument or at the very least elaborate on your own argument in a way that moves the discussion forward. Simply repeating a claim I've already responded to is boring and uninteresting.
Next. In discussions of whether or not something like ads are racist, usually it's enough to listen to what the people who are offended by the ads have to say. It's enough because we generally agree that racism is a bad thing and so that if a certain number of people are all seeing the same thing and feeling offended by it, then that's enough to establish whether something is or isn't racist. In other words, if enough people are offended, we defer to the opinion of the group with the grievance because as a society we don't like to go out of our way to hurt people.
But in case that's not enough there are other ways to find out whether something is or isn't racist. I've attempted to show you another way with this "role reversal" idea. I think most people who are familiar with discussions about what is or isn't racism have seen this easy test applied.
Now I think that at least in principle most people would agree that a series of ads which showed white males as being uncool would face a lot of criticism by black males and by society at large if the roles were reversed. Given this, I asked you to pick your response. Would you join with most people and condemn as racist a series of ads portraying black males as uncool?
You said you wouldn't.
PART TWO
ReplyDelete(for some reason my comments aren't posting...)
This leads me to suspect that you are probably what I call a "racism skeptic," that is, a person who pops up every now then during discussions about racism and offers up any number of possible explanations for what's going on other than racism. Around and around they go, refusing to see what the group with grievance sees, insulting them instead, and so on.
A person like this rejects the idea that anything can be proven racist. It's a type of extreme skepticism for which there's no answer. If that's the position you take, then the discussion is over before it's begun. For you, there's no way to prove that something is racist. Okay, we hear you, you don't believe anything is racist and nothing's going to change your mind. Happy?
PART THREE
ReplyDeleteOr, if that's not your position, then you need to state what does make something racist, for you. You've rejected the most typical of determining whether something like an ad is racist - namely, by listening to the people who are offended. You've rejected "reversing the roles," another common test. So what's you test then?
Or, again, perhsaps you're just one of these types who doesn't believe racism exists at all, in which case why are you trolling a site which discusses racism?