So you support laws restricting speech?
2 Likes
Are ads supposed to be unrestricted? They are definitely subject to some sort of content ratings depending on where theyâre shown, and more importantly truth in advertising laws. I support those.
3 Likes
Good question. but where do you draw the line? And more importantly, who gets to decide where that line is for the rest of us?
Truth in advertising is a good thing to be sure. Trying to sell something by using lies about your product is deception and a form of theft. That leaves us with the difficult fact vs opinion. If I say my product is the greatest widget ever made, is that a lie or is it opinion. Itâs very difficult to make laws that cover all these scenarios. So, we are forced to rely on proving intentional deception. Iâm ok with that metric. It benefits the public at large.
When you start trying to regulate âshameâ adverts you are entering in to an entirely new realm of prior restraint. I canât get behind you on that one.
I think the reasonable solution would be to educate ourselves on this tactic and stop buying any product from any manufacturer using âshameâ based advertisement. This is something for society to handle, not our laws.
3 Likes
Iâm starting to think that our threshold for what constitutes âoutrageâ may have gotten pitifully low. âOffensiveâ by todays standards? sure. âOUTRAGEOUSLY offensiveâ? yeah no. eye rollingly offensive? sure⌠sigh worthy offensiveâŚokay. but I canât be bothered to be âoutragedâ by this. If I could, Iâd have to throat punch everyone who ever brings up Conory as the âbest Bondâ.
2 Likes
As a child watching television made me think âring around the collarâ was one of the biggest problems facing humanity. Now you never hear about it. Itâs almost as if the problem never truly existed.
6 Likes
My friend was in a NYC band in the 80s called âThose Dirty Rings.â
1 Like
5 Likes
Yeah, itâs offensive all right. But I canât help but feel some grudging admiration for how perfectly offensive it is. A touch less misogynist, and all youâd feel is disgust. The tiniest smidgen more, and it would collapse into self-parody. Itâs a masterpiece!
2 Likes
Douching was cheap, accessible, and widely advertised as a feminine hygiene product; however, as Andrea Tone writes in the book Devices and Desires: A History of Contraceptives in America, it was also the most common form of birth control from 1940 until 1960âwhen the oral contraceptive pill arrived on the market.
The most popular brand of douche was Lysolâan antiseptic soap whose pre-1953 formula contained cresol, a phenol compound reported in some cases to cause inflammation, burning, and even death. By 1911 doctors had recorded 193 Lysol poisonings and five deaths from uterine irrigation.
3 Likes
Iâm pretty sure that is Ali Macgraw down in frontâŚ
In a way I feel that the title image (Presenting The Losers) is at least slightly more positive than most of the advertising at the time. What itâs actually saying (albeit in the sexist, objectifying language of the era) is that looks arenât everything. Seems to me like the opposite of typical advertising of the time which told women that intelligence was less important than beauty.
3 Likes
None of them is smiling, either. No wonder they didnât get hired. Theyâre a bunch of downers, those losers.
Ads today are more equal opportunity offensive, which is progress.
2 Likes
Apparently, women were smelling pretty ripe those daysâŚbut todayâs ads have not divorced themselves of ladies with distinctive jiggles and too much free time to fret over trivial problemsâŚ
1 Like
Weight gain, smaller boobs, deadly stinkhair . . . clearly this is bizarro Mad Men.
2 Likes
1 Like
Absolutely.
Thatâs because t-shirts donât have collars!
2 Likes
Not what I said at all so stop putting words in my mouth.
