Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
that's right, all those fashion choices are just a huge fucking coincidence. no conspiracy theories need apply. it's all just a cock-up.
Who advertises for grunge? For petticoats worn over regular clothes? For black leggings and three layers of old knitted jumpers? Do you think it's all a conspiracy from Big Op Shop?
See if you can find an answer to that, in between bouts of asinine LOLling.
-
I in turn could use working *on* my syntax.
-
so you seriously think that constant bombardment with images from early childhoold through adolescence does not constitute an extremely strong and pervasive form of programming?
Nope. They just go in the large cauldron of the messages that a young person gets. And don't get me wrong, I try to expose myself and my children to as little advertising as possible, but I really don't think ithey're as deterministically successful as you seem to think.
the media is big business, in case you didn't know. advertisers do not spend billions as a hobby.
You know what advertisers are really good at? Convincing companies that they need them, and everybody else that they control the message and our lives. To an extent companies do need them - in a saturated market, you've got to get your share, be more visible than other brands. And sometimes they might even be able to create need where none existed. But do they brainwash us? How? If nothing else, do you think we identify so closely with the things that we buy, that they are the essence of who we are?
LOL!!!
Might want to work of being less of a douche if you want to continue this conversation.
-
can you show me where i positioned young women as perpetual victims in their relationships with media? being subjected, from a very young age, to media brainwashing (conditioning) does not constitute "victim" status. it means we are all being constantly programmed, with varying levels of success, to the advantage of advertisers and their lackies. you seriously dispute this?
Maybe Sacha won't, but I'm more than happy to. It think it's greatly overstated. We talk about the sexualisation of children, but as it ever dawned on anybody that perhaps we were excessively de-sexualising them previously? I'm not saying there aren't issues or that what you say is wholly untrue, but I really don't think that words like brainwashing and programming are very accurate or helpful. Socialisation and personal growth are enormously complex, to think that advertisers can somehow direct that process means giving them way too much credit.
-
Heh... and I wear my hair #1 short for practicality and comfort,
Er, me too. I swear! And if anybody makes baldness cracks, I cry.
-
*cough*iPod*cough*
An iPod is (was) a fashionable thing to have but makes you look like a complete dork. Give me somebody who goes around with an original walkman from way back then, now that's a fashion statement.
-
I don't understand why it's the impractical things that are fashionable.
Otherwise we'd all be wearing one piece silver suits, like in the future.
One theory is that it's what happens in the animal kingdom, say with pheasants and the such: look at me, I'm such a healthy specimen I can afford to develop parts of me that are for pure aesthetic purpose, no practical use whatsoever. And so with people what doesn't have a utilitarian purposes attracts attention. Impractical is beautiful. Does art have a purpose?
-
A tie is not terribly practical either, and talk about social conditioning. And really fake nails aren't all that different from jewellery, are they? Wear them, don't wear them, I'm not sure you can take the pleasure that some indivuduals derive from choosing them and using them and say "that's the result of conditioning", therefore bad.
We're social beings, so much of what we do is the result of socialisations. Doesn't mean we're passive victims of it.
-
Not to worry, they both died mercifully young.
-
4 mins long and extremely graphic.
The ad is four minutes long and they think it's going to work on the attention span of the kind of person who will text while driving? Okay.