All the posts here forced me to watch the snickers ad

[Mackay]

I don't have a television... and I live abroad. (I also happen to live in a city with an openly gay mayor and I'm pleased as punch about it.) So... how the heck would I see this ad? All the free advertising provided by the 'offended' folks right here at DU.

First, this joke is 16 years old... so the commercial is not funny for that reason alone. It was originally done in Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure. At one point in the movie, they are so relieved that they hug. Then they immediately jump apart and accuse each other simultaneously, "Fag"! Same dumb joke...

Who are they making fun of in the ad and in Bill and Ted's?

They are making fun of HOMOPHOBES!!!

In both cases, they are mocking the macho man who is deathly afraid of being mistaken for being gay. Don't believe me? Look at how the protagonists are portrayed in both cases... slovenly neanderthal idiots... surfer dude idiots...

I highly doubt anyone is watching and idolizing these hairy, slobby mechanics. And to make the parody of the macho man even more complete, the men are shown ripping hair off their chests. I would think anyone could understand who the derision was aimed at here.

The ad sucks and I'm no fan of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Basically, I'm posting this because I find it SAD that so many people don't understand the joke. It's a stupid joke, sure... but the ad is making fun of homophobes, NOT gay people.

The 'offended' people here are giving snickers way more advertising than they would have gotten otherwise. Way to go!

[Midlodemocrat]

1. Are you gay?

Because if you're not, you don't get to tell anyone in the GLBT community what constitutes offensive.

[Lerkfish]

5. I agree with you, and I further extend that to the "articulate" comment

for the african american community.

Too many people spending too much time telling us not to be offended by offensive remarks.

[Mackay]

14. Ironically

Just the other day, I told one of my students that he was 'articulate' after he defended himself in a classroom debate. He was white and he isn't American... but I shudder to think that I couldn't extend the same compliment in the United States to a minority. Does this mean only white people have the right to be called 'articulate'?

I guess the racists are winning the language war when words that can have a positive connotation are suddenly taboo.

[bettyellen]

17. it's considered professional to critique the performance, not the person.

otherwise, it's objectifying them.

[Mackay]

56. Exactly...

But given the context of the United States, I can see that it would be impossible to critique the performance of a minority as being 'articulate' without the possibility of it being considered a racist and backhanded comment.

When you critique the performance, you are ultimately critiquing the person as well.

[bettyellen]

84. not at all, if you stick to discussing the work on it's merits, you avoid making it

seem so personal. If you paid attention to such things you'd notice that women and minorities get these vague labels slapped on them without being given credit for particular accomplishments. Men are much more often lauded with the particulars of their "achievements".
It's easy to be race and gender neutral, and judge on the work, not the person..... it's not necessarily the big inconvenience so many here claim.

[Mackay]

100. You're making a distinction you know to be false

I dislike Biden... and for the moment I am supporting Kucinich.

But assuming that Biden labelled one of Obama's written texts or speeches as being 'articulate'... you and I both know that the word would have been interpreted the same way.

[bettyellen]

114. nope, an honest focus on the work itself will allow you to avoid this patriarchal

bullshit that is perceived when you apply the labels to a person. when you stick to evaluating the particulars of the work, you have a much smaller chance with slapping labels on a person willy nilly..... because the personal labels are often patronizing, objectifying, in a way an honest dissection of the work cannot ever be. you may not understand the stuff about objectifying if you're a white man, you lack the history to get it, but trust me, it;'s not lost on women or people of color.
so none of this, i can't say anything nice without sticking my foot in my mouth stuff, okay? none of this i'll do things my way or be with holding and it's your fault for being oversensitive bullshit either.
i just explained a safe adult way to praise others in the professional sphere. now that you know better, how about trying it?

[Mackay]

118. Well I gave a concrete example a moment ago

which I think pretty much shows that you are wrong. You are just equivocating.

[bettyellen]

128. the example you gave was to apply a label, not to effectively critique the work....

so what i was doing was clarifying this tendency to slap labels of approval or dislike is precisely what comes off as patriarchal bullshit.
see there's an assumption there that a one word critque "articulate" is supposed to be at all valuable to anyone. it's merely your stamp of approval.
what we're hoping for here is more than that, an honest, critical evaluation.
as i said, try it sometime, you may learn a richer, more honest way to communicate with others.

[bettyellen]

136. and yeah, if Biden had said "his speech on the House Floor about XYZ was articualte"

there would have been no fuss at all. But he rattled off a laundry list of qualities ias if he were a commodity.
Can you get how that's objectifying? and offensive?

[Mackay]

154. labels

The entirety of Biden's discourse was covertly racist. I'm not defending Biden and please don't try to twist my arguments to do so. I used the hypothetical 'IF' he had used the word 'articulate' in a well intentioned way (and further postulated 'IF' it were directed at a written text and not the man), the word would still have been cast as racist (despite the intention of the speaker).

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Lerkfish brought up the word "articulate".

I said that it was unfortunate that a decent word with an admirable meaning ('to express an idea clearly and effectively') now has bad connotations. Being articulate is an admirable quality.

Being inarticulate is an undesirable quality: Why do we mock George Bush? Because he is not articulate.

Furthermore, I expressed dismay that I could not level the same admiration (what you call patriarchal acceptance) in the UNITED STATES upon all students equally. Apparently, only white male students can recieve such a compliment. If I were to find a woman or a black man articulate, it would be an insult. In Europe, this is not the case.

There is something very ironic and sad about this situation. Basically, I see it as a segregation of our language... which is pitiful. Racism triumphs by denying terms of admiration to minority groups.

As far as "learning a richer, more honest way to communicate with others", please get real. Every post on this board shows approval or disapproval using words... including your own. I happen to like the English language... I plan on using it with or without your express approval.

[bettyellen]

169. Biden spoke of Obama as if he were a product. Black men were once for sale in the US, so.....

there's actually damned good reason for white men to learn to watch their mouths and stop discussing women and blacks as the objects that they were once treated as. It bristles for real, and there's no need for us to apologize for the "inconvenience" it causes you.

[Mackay]

171. Deliberately obtuse...

once again... trying to equate my comments to a defense of Biden. I just told you that his comments were racist.

Watch your own mouth and try reading before you post.

[bettyellen]

173. wow, i never equated what you said with Biden ever,,, but you said you feared complimenting

students work, and i tried to give you tools to do just that effectively. (and hey, you're very welcome!!) and to open your mind a bit about WHY people get offended when dudes like you think they have graced them with your stamp of approval, and we ought to be like mega grateful for that. but it's just SO flying over your head. no, of course there's never a problem with how YOU communicate, is there? except you did say you were scared to say anything, so just trying to get you over that fear...LOL. sorry i wasted my breath trying to enlighten you.
hard to believe you're in education, so sad.....

[Mackay]

175. The world is waiting

Let us know when your great lexicon of communication tools is published. I'm looking forward to the revolution.

"sorry i wasted my breath trying to enlighten you."

You're not so sorry... your wasted breath was on trying to have the last word is all.

[bettyellen]

178. i'm glad you snapped out of it and saw I did not liken you to Biden and accept your apology!

of course as an educator I'm not suprised you wanted to clear that up.
I'm hoping with work you can solve that nasty problem and are no longer paralyzed by the idea of praising your students. Live in fear and confusion no more!

[Mackay]

186. You're so cute...

n/t

[bettyellen]

188. you meant to say: my posts delight you? (that was lesson one)

because "you're so cute" could land you in the deans office...

[Mackay]

189. Oh god yes, the Dean's office

spank me, spank me

[bettyellen]

195. ha! i correctly sensed you want to be house broken

you certainly need it.

[Lerkfish]

63. again...

Too many people spending too much time telling us not to be offended by offensive remarks.

[JackRiddler]

97. The problem is that offended and offensive are two different concepts.

I am offended by a lot of things that are in poor taste, and this is not debatable as it pertains to my own feelings. But that doesn't mean these things are offensive, which is an objective quality (shared by more than perceiver) and therefore subject to debate.

[Lerkfish]

199. no, the point is that we do not have to right to say whether someone can

be offended.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

200. Not impressed by any of these myriad PC threads...

I mock Republicans, laugh at Borat, Carlos Mencia and you.

[Mackay]

7. If I choose a rainbow flag avatar

do I have the right to make a comment about the inability of certain people to understand that this ad slams homophobes?

I guess if you are offended about the slamming of homophobes... then in that case, I would say go right ahead and be offended.

[Midlodemocrat]

12. Nope. You sure don't.

You don't get to decide if the GLBT community is offended or thinks its homophobic. I don't either. I also don't get to decide if the black community is offended by the 'articulate' comment. And, unless you're black, you don't either.

You don't get to decide what is offensive to a group of people unless you belong to that group.

Case. Closed.

[pnwmom]

20. Are you gay, by the way?

[Midlodemocrat]

28. I think I answered that in my post.

[pnwmom]

35. Which post? I couldn't tell.

[Midlodemocrat]

37. Um, the one you responded to?

[pnwmom]

54. I responded to more than one, and in neither did you say.

So I guess the answer is no.

[Midlodemocrat]

60. LOL. In the first post you responded to, I

said that I don't get to tell the GLBT community what is offensive because I'm not gay.

I'm not gay. I'm a very happily married, middle age, mom of three, completely non homophobic kids.

[ThomCat]

62. And your point is?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

67. She asked someone else the same question,

so I was curious where she was coming from.

[ThomCat]

68. She said that our community decides what's

offensive to out community. And she said she supports our possition that the ad is homophobic because we find it to be homophobic.

What is your problem with that?

[pnwmom]

78. My problem is that the gay community isn't monolithic.

[ThomCat]

82. Of course it's not.

But when the majority of GLBT people here, and a number of major GLBT advocacy groups all state that it's homophobic, and state why, it's a good bet that it is.

Pet theories about why it's really this subtle thing that only a few enlightened people really understand don't help anyone. If only a few people get an advertisement, either the advertisement failed on a catastrophic level or you've got it all wrong.

[ThomCat]

47. She has gay family.

A bunch of us here are her family. That gives her as much standing to speak as it gives some other people here who claim their wisdom on GLBT because they have a gay relative somewhere.

[LostinVA]

55. Midlo is a gay advocate and has many of us in her extended family

Gay and straight.

[pnwmom]

58. You're insulting all children of gays if you're going to imply

that they aren't members of the gay community .

If that's your attitude, then you shouldn't have any children.

[ThomCat]

65. I'm implying exactly what I said.

She's part of our community because she's part of our family. We all have relatives that have no part of our communities. We may have some relatives who are, but being related to someone gay does not make anyone automatically part of our community. She definitely IS part of our community.

As for whether or not I'll have kids, that's none of your concern and I certainly don't need your permission.

[pnwmom]

73. Being brought up by a gay parent makes you a member of the gay

community.

But your attitude isn't all that uncommon. Just sad.

It's a serious issue , actually -- how many grown kids feel rejected by the community as they reach adulthood, if they're not gay themselves.

[ThomCat]

Hell, no it doesn't.

It means you MIGHT be a member of the gay community. Nothing more.

The only people who have any right to claim membership in our community are people who support that community.

[pnwmom]

81. Are you saying I don't support the community?

Or that children of gays don't support the community?

Is there no freedom of thought in the community? Are members of the community all supposed to agree with each other on every single issue?

[ThomCat]

85. I've rarely seen you support anything but your own pet theories.

What you do offline is a mystery to me. But here, you're one of the last people I'd claim as part of our community.

[pnwmom]

95. I'm not a member of the community unless I agree with your "theories"

on everything. I got it now.

[ThomCat]

98. If you had to agree with MY theories

you'd never have a chance. It would be nice if you agreed with the community's general stances. It would even be nice if you occasionally stood up for the community is some way.

Instead you only seem to stand up for yourself. "I'm related to someone gay so I say this, and I'm right." It's all about you, and your supposed connection to our community is just a tool to make you right.

We're not here to validate you, and you don't support our community we don't need you.

[pnwmom]

104. Tell me which of the community's "general stances" that I don't support.

I'm curious.

[ThomCat]

108. I'll tell you what.

Instead of going back and doing a search through all your previous posts (and wasting a lot of my time reading those posts) I'll make a point from now on to point it out to you whenever I see it again.

[Mackay]

31. No one person gets to decide for any group

And no group is the final arbiter either.

I am a democrat... and I find the people who are upset by the words "Democrat Party" to be equally whiney. Geez... I sure didn't get the point of all the people who got in a tizzy over that.

Sort of like the word "liberal". For some reason, people try to toss that word around like an insult. It has a positive connotation... despite the right's attempt to demonize the word.

By the way, my principal point was that the offended individuals and groups are getting far more notoriety for snickers.

[ThomCat]

18. You'd be wrong

If you insist that this ad makes fun of homophobes.

This is advertising. They target demographics. Right now, gayness is a huge attention getter in the media. The ad execs know this.

Opposing the so called "gay agenda" will get you a whole lot of fans. Making fun of fags will get you a lot of laughs.

Calling out homophobes doesn't give you a very big audience.

So if you're an ad executive and you're spending a million dollars on an add, who are you going to target as your intended audience, the millions of people out there who are homophobic, or the relatively small people who are actively against homophobia?

Right, you go for the cheap laugh and the big audience.

The idea that this ad was some kind of subtle civil-rights message is just ludicrous.

[pnwmom]

25. The ad wasn't a subtle civil rights message. However, the butt of

the ad were homophobes, not gays. The guys were clowns. We were meant to laugh AT them.

The website contained more damaging stuff, though. Specifically, the ending with the players looking disgusted.

[Bluebear]

30. The butt of the ads was NOT homophobes.

The ad was aimed at 18-24 year old males. Although I know you have credentials to talk about the subject, I do put my stock in GLAAD, HRC and Judy Shepard over you, sorry.

[pnwmom]

46. I've got a son in that age category

and he knew that the ad was making fun of homophobes.

[bettyellen]

he perceived it that way, because that's his bias....he cannot know how it plays in

places where fear and loathing of gays is common, can he?
so why are you both trying to speak for everyone?

[pnwmom]

76. I'm not trying to speak for everyone. What makes you think I am?

[bettyellen]

88. you son "knows" what is and isn't so here, so yeah....

[Mackay]

79. You're the one trying to speak for everyone

My opinion is that the ad was 1) Making fun of homophobes (who are so disgusting, I have a hard time believing the average joe in Peoria wants to be them). 2) The attention given to the ad isn't worth it because it was dumb... 3) and in the end just creates more publicity for snickers.

It may be hard for the Gay and Lesbian community to accept, but just because they take a stand on an issue, I don't have to agree with them.

I'm for Gay Marriage
Gays in the Military
Gay Rights in the workplace

In fact, I bet I agree with the Gay and Lesbian rights on 90-99 percent of issues.

But, I happen to disagree with you on this minute issue.

But go ahead, please browbeat me into submission. Divergent opinions will not be tolerated.

[bettyellen]

101. have you seen american TV? every dumb fuck on TV is like those homophbes

90% of the protagonists in our cultures' most popular medium is fairly indistinguishable from those asses. THEY are not consider freaks by the masses.
Get some perspective.

[ThomCat]

112. That's a damned good point.

Those guys were "average joes."

And that's even what they're called when casting for that type of character.

[Bluebear]

66. OK you son knows more than Judy Shepard now. nt

[pnwmom]

92. My son is an example of the person the ad is aimed at, right?

Realistically, how many 18-24 year old guys -- the ostensible targets of the ad -- are going to want to identify with those fat, ignorant slobs?

That's why my concern isn't with the ad, it's with the website. Because of the alternative ending showing the PLAYERS -- guys that young men might look up to -- looking disgusted. That's inviting homophobia.

[ThomCat]

69. That's nice.

And ad that's designed to play to millions of people around the country, the majority of whom seem to oppose gay marriage and pay very close attention to gay scandals, and love to make fun of gayness. Yet you and your son are the experts who say that the ad is designed to make fun of all of those people.

Yes, ad agencies often make ads that make fun of millions of potential customers. :eyes:

[ThomCat]

36. No, it was not making fun of homophobes.

It was making fun of perceived gayness.

If those two guys were somehow accidentally covered in ink and were horrified to be perceived as black instead of gay, would you still think it's not a bigoted joke?

It's an ad that's designed to reach millions of people, and it's designed so that the average consumer will get the message. So what message does the average person get? They get it that being gay is horrible and funny.

[pnwmom]

51. The message in the ad is that two dumb slobs were horrified

at the idea of being gay. Those characters were not people that anyone would want to identify with, particularly the 18-24 year old targets of the ad.

It was the website alternative ad that was bad, because in it, the players -- who young people would look up to -- were looking horrified.

[ThomCat]

57. Many ads use dumb slobs to represent average joes.

And millions of average joes identify with those ads enough to go out and buy more of those products. So the idea that people were not supposed to identify with those actors is ridiculous.

The situation was supposed to be asburd (which is common in advertising) but the actors were not.

[bettyellen]

94. every TV show stars a dumb slob married to a hot woman, avererge american man wants

wants to be that dumb slob with a red hot passion.
oh to be a clueless out of shape moron who's family is a font of love and forgiveness. it's the american dream.

[pnwmom]

124. I doubt that it's the dream of the 18-24 year olds that the ad targets.

Okay, leaving out the "hot woman" part, since that wasn't in the ad.

But why would young men want to identify with the old fat clowns in the ads? Wouldn't young men want to feel superior to those guys?

[bettyellen]

131. that's the dream that's all over prime time TV my dear. i don;t get it, your son doesn;t get it

good for him, btw. doesn't mean they ain't the most average of joes on TV.
i don't think the average DUer was the target audience. I'm not sure why anyone here would assume they are.

[pnwmom]

135. You really think that young guys don't have higher aspirations than that?

I can see them identifying with the ball players -- that's why that ending on the website is so bad -- but I don't think most 18-24 year olds would identify with the idiotic guys in the ad. They unattractive, out of shape, and OLD -- at least in the eyes of young people. Why would young people want to be like them?

[bettyellen]

139. i think it's more about being an average joe and what your comfortable- and uncomfortable

with than it is about having big aspirations.
my point is, these guys are not the big freaks on TV that some are making out. They are like average TV characters, the protaganists who are NOT made fun of every week on their TV shows. They are average acceptable Joes of primetime TV.

[maxsolomon]

8. maybe the OP was speaking for the overseas TV-less american community

or the straight boy community

or the homophobe phobic community

[Mackay]

116. Or the community

who is not afraid to have their own opinion and not be browbeaten by everyone else.

[pnwmom]

16. He's right though, that the ad itself is making fun of homophobes.

It's the website that goes the other direction, particularly with the alternative ending with the players making disgusted faces.

[Midlodemocrat]

19. However, that would be YOUR interpretation.

Others obviously interpret otherwise.

[rpgamerd00d]

22. Right, and we should never ask Mars for clarification, either.

We should just assume, and blame.

Everyone knows openminded liberals never ask for clarification, and always jump to conclusions.

:sarcasm:

[Midlodemocrat]

34. Oh, God, no you again.

Just kidding.

Okay, here's the deal. If members of the GLBT community say that it is offensive, who am I to say otherwise? If the black community tells me that they found the comment about Barack by Biden to be offensive, do I get to tell them to lighten up? To get over it?

The GLBT has been tossed under the bus too often by their very own party. We need to listen to them. We need to do right by them. It's the least we can do.

And, the fact that the Mars company donates brazilians to Repuke causes doesn't hurt, right?

[pnwmom]

40. The members of the gay community don't speak with one voice.

Why do you think they do?

My father's partner watched the game on TV, and he wasn't offended at all. He thought it was funny. So why should I be offended?

[Midlodemocrat]

48. No one said you had to be offended.

But don't dismiss the offensive nature of the total campaign based on one person's reaction.

If someone tells me that they find something personally offensive, I have the good manners to STFU about it. It's just common courtesy not to drive the nail in any deeper.

[Hoping4Change]

72. B-A-L-O-N-EY. What if someone of another race kissed you and

an onlooker told you that they found that offensive. Are you going to STFU?

[Midlodemocrat]

86. Missed the point.

But, no surprise. 'Purient speculation' would leave me to believe that.

[Hoping4Change]

99. You wrote: "If someone tells me that they find something

personally offensive, I have the good manners to STFU about it. It's just common courtesy not to drive the nail in any deeper."

My point was that there are probably countless instances where you have not STFU when someone said they found something personally offensive and I used the example of an inter-racial kiss.

[Midlodemocrat]

109. Because what I was saying if you read the thread is that

when someone tells me that they find something offensive, I don't tell them to 'lighten up', or 'get over it'.

I respect their stance because they are the ones being offended. As a straight woman, I don't get to tell the GLBT community what is homophobic.

[Hoping4Change]

120. So if someone freaked out about seeing an interracial couple kiss,

you're telling me that you would not tell them to get over it. You're telling me that you would respect their racist feelings?

[Midlodemocrat]

123. Wow. Reach much?

That isn't at all what I was saying. :eyes:

[Hoping4Change]

127. Where's the reach? Its exactly what you wrote.

"If someone tells me that they find something personally offensive, I have the good manners to STFU about it. It's just common courtesy not to drive the nail in any deeper. "

[rpgamerd00d]

42. I didn't say the GLBT community shouldn't be offended.

I even said the opposite further down.

All I'm saying is, its not very open minded to simply make an assumption about something without asking for clarification when the topic could be interpreted multiple ways.

Also, not everyone is a walking Google database who knows who owns which companies and where they donate.

[Midlodemocrat]

44. Well, why not?

Why DON'T you know? :sarcasm:

I didn't see the ad. I did see the website ad campaign. I did see that PFLAG and america blog are calling the campaign homophobic.

After seeing the campaign, I am in agreement. And, I am at the point now that I don't want to wait any longer for equal rights for the gay community. It's time.

[rpgamerd00d]

49. I am with you on that, even if you don't believe me.

I just don't agree with the strategy you think is the best, is all.

[Midlodemocrat]

52. Funny thing is, I DO believe you.

and I'm going to do my damnest to get you to come around to my side.

Hell, before he got the granite cookie, I even got Walt Starr to admit that the death penalty might not be the way to go. HUGH!!!111111!!!! I tells ya.


:hi:

[rpgamerd00d]

74. Well, I'm with you on the DP at least.

:)

[pnwmom]

26. Are you gay?

[Bluebear]

41. No but she longs for the gay brother she never had. nt

[Midlodemocrat]

53. Oh, no. Is there something I need to tell my sisters-in-law? All 3 of them?

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

59. We've turned you gay by osmosis!!!

[racaulk]

70. Ha ha ha, the planned worked!

Do we get a toaster now? ;)

[Midlodemocrat]

89. Ya know. I DO need a new toaster.

I was headed to Target before Mr. Midlo decided he needed to get a new suit at Brooks Brothers. :eyes:

Damn that man dresses well for an old fart.

[racaulk]

103. Aw, come on now, you know better than that!

The recruiter gets the toaster, not the recruitee. Didn't you ever watch "Ellen?" ;)

[LostinVA]

167. No, we get panini grills instead!!! Stainless or cherry red

I want red, I think, to match my grinder.

[ThomCat]

43. She's as much a part of the gay community as

many gay people, and far more a part of our community that many of our family members who don't get it.

Midlo is a damned good person.

[racaulk]

83. Totally agree.

I see so much more love and support from Midlo on this message board than I would ever see from my own biological family in my lifetime.

Anyone that would question her support for the GLBT community is a fool. You're right, she is a damned good person.

:loveya:

[Midlodemocrat]

90. Wow. Thank you.

:loveya: back.

[goclark]

45. I am African American and I agree

No one that is NOT in the GLBT community can decide for you what is offensive.

I am not gary but I was offended by that commercial !

I am constantly amazed to see what others tell me what I should not be offended by~

[ThomCat]

75. We see the same tactic over and over again.

White people mock black people (and native american people, and almost any non-white people) and say that people shouldn't be offended.
Straight people insult GLBT people and insist that we shouldn't be offended.
Non-disabled people often make fun of disabled people and say we're just being sensitive.

Every branch of the civil rights movement has to deal with the issue of "It's just a joke. Lighten up."

And every time I see it I want to beat my head against a wall, or someone else's. :banghead:

[goclark]

197. Believe me I understand

Wall ~ :puke:

[Name removed]

130. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spoony]

141. ...or give any opinion on the matter, apparently.

It's going to limit DU pretty significantly if we are only allowed to comment on things based on the categories we fit. Maybe there should be a sexual orientation option in our profiles along with gender and location so we know whose opinion is permissible and whose isn't.

[Midlodemocrat]

144. Totally missing the point.

If you aren't gay, you don't get to tell the GLBT community to 'lighten up', 'it's just a commercial', 'grow a thicker skin'.

People were offended by it. Members of the GLBT community thought it was homophobic. You are entitled to any opinion you choose to hold, but don't tell the offended that 'their' opinion isn't valid.

That's just wrong.

[spoony]

146. Some did.

It was offensive to them, and that's their right. Some were offended by Tony Dungy thanking God. That was their right. But just as no one can tell them what to feel, you can't tell anyone else how to react to that. I feel both of those are not offensive things, and I'm not going to be shut down by some finger wagging question about if I have proper standing to offer an opinion.

[Midlodemocrat]

151. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

But don't dismiss someone's opinion that it is homophobic by telling them to 'lighten up'.

And, FWIW, I don't recall seeing anything like you stated. People in the GLBT community were simply commenting not to be dismissive if they thought it was homophobic.

A lot of posters, however, did take them to task for being 'too sensitive'. Not right.

[spoony]

159. And when will all gay people convene

to determine if this ad is offensive to them? Will there be a report released at that time? Can straight people comment after that?

And what if two gay people disagree, are they both right or is just one of them right?

[Midlodemocrat]

161. You're missing the point.

The point isn't whether or not someone found the ad offensive. The point is that today, in particular, a lot of GLBT members were told that their being offended wasn't valid.

That's the point. The validity of their opinions being discarded.

[spoony]

163. I'm not finding a point

It seems like a lot of people are saying that someone who feels something cannot be told that they may have taken something wrong, so that no one can call that feeling "invalid." And again, if we apply that across the board, there are a lot of things based on feelings that others, outside the feeling, make comments and opinions about. That doesn't make outside commentary invalid, either.

[Zhade]

155. I am. I wasn't offended. I think the poster is right.

Am I not "gay enough" if I disagree with you?

[Midlodemocrat]

158. Read the thread.

No one said you aren't entitled to your opinion. However, some very vocal members of the GLBT community here were told to 'lighten up', 'don't be so sensitive', etc.

Holding an opinion is one thing. Telling someone else their opinion isn't valid when they specifically tell you that they find the issue at hand offensive isn't.

[pnwmom]

165. Apparently not.

The poster already said that the gay community and its supporters are on one side of the argument, and everyone else is on the other.

So I guess that makes you not gay enough -- if you want to be part of "the community" anyway.

[Midlodemocrat]

182. That's not what I said and you know it.

:eyes:

As a member of the gay community, as you claim, one would think you would be a little less snarky and a little more empathetic.

[pnwmom]

184. Oh please. Members of the gay community are just as snarky

as everyone else.

And you know perfectly well what you said -- and why I can't quote your exact words.

[Midlodemocrat]

187. Yup. Those racist bastards.

They are just constantly kicking everyone down, the assholes that they are.

:eyes:

And, FWIW, what I said is that you will find essentially the same people on disparate sides of any argument in GD.

But, it's more fun to be snarky.

[pnwmom]

194. What does snarkiness have to do with racism?

[The Straight Story]

2. Obama snickers in an articulate way at edward's light bulbs used in lite brights

INCOMING!!!!

:popcorn: :hide:

[AwakeAtLast]

134. Oh. My. God.

You didn't! Oh, you did! :spank:

This is my first and only comment in this debate, BTW. Well, maybe.

:hi:

[Midlodemocrat]

3. Oh, and for the record, some very prominent Gay Friendly groups have

proclaimed it homophobic.

[Bluebear]

4. The ad sucks? Your post sucks.

The 'offended' people as you call us included the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD, so pardon me if I put my stock in them and not your expert analysis.

[Mackay]

10. In that case

the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD are showing the same lack of sophistication as people who would like to ban Mark Twain because Huckleberry Finn contains the word 'nigger'.

Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean they are right... after all 50 million people voted for Bush. Should I agree with them because there are more of them?

[LostinVA]

64. When was Huck Finn written? When was the ad aired?

And, GLAAD, et al are WAY above your insults.

For shame.

[Mackay]

96. If Huckleberry Finn were written yesterday

as a historical novel, my comment still applies.

And by the way, you sound like G. Bush: "You are either with us or against us."

I probably agree with both of those organisations on every single issue except this one.

But as I said in another post, it doesn't matter that I agree with you 99 percent of the time and I vote for candidates who support Gay and Lesbian rights.

That is one of the reasons I like Kucinich... because he was clear on the issue of gay marriage when asked.

Unless I am 100 percent on board and accept UNCONDITIONALLY everything that the majority of Gay and Lesbian members of this board think, then I will be branded a homophobe.

Shame right back at you

[rpgamerd00d]

6. I have to agree.

You make good points.

Whether gay people are offended or not is beyond anyone's control, of course.

But I agree that the intent from Mars was to make fun of homophobia.

If people on this board think Norbit is making fun of fat people (because a fat person is displayed on screen) then they should also think that the Snickers ad is making fun of homophobes (because homophobes are displayed on the screen).

[Bluebear]

9. There's a surprise. nt

[rpgamerd00d]

11. Logic is surprising? Um, ok.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w13rd0]

13. The problem with ads of this nature...

...is that the "making fun of the homophobic" is an inside joke. While those that recognize the two guys are idiots and over-reacting, the "general public" sees two guys recoil at anything that might be "less than manly", which is to imply that kissing another man is "less than manly". When you live in a society where a man will say something like, "If I ever ..., I'd cut my dick off" or "If I found out my son was gay, I'd disown him or 'beat him into manliness'" - it's just not acceptable.

Subtle humor and hidden meanings aren't necessarily something that penetrates the noggin of the vast American electorate...

[bettyellen]

24. yep, the "enlightened" men here fail to see how this plays in Peoria.....

they only see it through their own eyes.... and expect everyone else, including gays, to bow to their own analysis.
The beneficent dictators will explain it all for us, once again....

[ThomCat]

29. You assume that there is this subtle hidden context.

This is advertising. Do you know anything about the ad industry and how ads are developed? Everything is done in focus groups, and meetings with dozens of executives sitting around discussing every little detail of every add for months as they get produced and then released.

There is no hidden context in ads. They're designed to be blatant enough that that average consumer will always get the message.

So what message does the average consumer take from these snickers ads? It's sure as hell not that homophobia is bad. It's that gayness is both bad and hillarious.

[bettyellen]

15. what's this "offended" w/ quotes bullshit? and the alternate versions with gay bashing and

suicide... what hilarious comedies are they ripped off from?
gosh, seems you missed a few things, they flew right over your straight little head.

[TahitiNut]

27. Rorschach

:shrug:

[Puglover]

77. I thought you were'nt gonna lower

yourself to comment further on this. Guess not huh?

[Lex]

32. Oh, thank goodness you've explained it to me!

I was too stupid to have my own interpretation of it.

I thought it 'offended' me, but really it didn't.

Just needed your explanation of how SAD I was being at not understanding the joke.

[Midlodemocrat]

38. LOL. You rock, Lex!!!

[Mackay]

113. Happy to be of service...

nt

[Lex]

117. Consider this

“It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive.”

[Mackay]

125. Wait a minute...

I think that was the entire point of my original post. Thank you for putting it in much clearer terms for all the others here.

[Lex]

133. Happy to be of service.

nt

[Ian David]

33. M&M Mars is run by anti-gay right-wing Repukes of the worst kind.

Go see what AmericaBlog has to say about them.

[ThomCat]

39. Right. The idea that M&M Mars would make an add

criticizing homophobes is ridiculous. It's much more likely that their right wing executives would approve an add mocking gays. That kind of thing clearly appeals to a huge number of people.

[Mackay]

50. I haven't eaten those kinds of candy bar in years

and I don't miss them. I'm not defending their right wing corporation either. Sounds like a perfectly good reason not to buy their products.

Living abroad, I bet a lot of people here who are railing against snickers, etc. buy a lot more products from right wing corporations than myself.

If someone is offended by the ad, not buying snickers is a perfect response. But I don't think that just because there are a lot of members of the homosexual community on this board, that I should feel browbeaten to agree with them. I saw the ad and thought "Homophobic Slobs... whatever".

[Ariana Celeste]

61. I am a bisexual woman.

So maybe my opinion will half count. (joking)

I found the ad neither funny, or offensive. It appeared to me to be a shot at homophobic men and how ridiculous they can be. I grinned, and watched the next crappy commercial.

[buddhamama]

71. i watched it, too, and i don't get the joke.

the comments/reactions of the football players were especially homophobic and, did not poke fun at Macho Man but gave one the sense it was/is OK to be 'grossed out' by and ridicule gay men, and that being a gay man was the worst possible thing one could be.

[Mackay]

121. ???

Where are the football players? Maybe I haven't seen the same ad as everyone else...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjuXbYW6KmE

[buddhamama]

138. look again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPEw0N9ORVI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOSlesmeMMQ


not cool!!!!

[pnwmom]

162. That was from the website, right? As opposed to the ad on TV.

[Mackay]

185. I hadn't seen those vids...

I only watched the commercial.

The reactions of the players in my opinion is another ball of wax... and I could see how an impressionable young person might easily be swayed by their homophobic attitudes. So, these are really disturbing. They are also pretty offensive in that they seem to show a unified derision.

That said, a person's reaction to an object does not necessarily hold the meaning as the object itself. I'm sure that the same football players would react equally unfavorable towards the photos of Robert Mapplethorpe. No one here is going to argue Mapplethorpe is a homophobe. However, I can see the players having the exact same reactions and grimacing in the same way. Does this mean we should ban Mapplethorpe? Or that Mapplethorpe causes homophobia?

Personally, I'm not too surprised by the players' reactions... having lived in the U.S. and attended a school where the jocks had these types of attitudes. Or after seeing Bruno interview the wrestlers at Daytona beach and the football players from Atlanta.

[Catherine Vincent]

80. Did you know that Barack Obama is articulate?

:)

[Mackay]

106. Really?

I don't like him because he claims he is against the war but seems to want to fund it.

[Ian David]

87. If a gay man kisses you, hit him with a wrench.

If a black man whistles at a white woman, lynch him.

Get it?

[Midlodemocrat]

91. Hang on. I want to write that down.

:hi:

You nailed it, dude.

[Ian David]

93. Snickers' Stepchildren

Moments after being forced to kiss Uhura, Kirk hit her over the head with a wrench and then poisoned himself.

[racaulk]

111. ROFLMAO

Big trekkie here. Thanks IanDB1, I needed the laugh! :rofl:

[Mackay]

102. My black uncle is married to my white aunt

So no... I guess I don't get it.

[Catherine Vincent]

105. Actually, if some strange guy walks up and kisses me,

I think I will hit him with a wrench if I could find one. You probably should change that to force kiss.

[Maven]

110. Sure I do!

It's satire, see, because the people doing the lynching look cruel and stupid.

[SayWhatYo]

107. Did a google search on 'snickers ad'

because I couldn't recall exactly what it was... Looking at the first entry, I believe that DUers and Freepers now have a common cause to unite behind. Different reasons, sure, but let's just group hug!!

[Mackay]

115. Are you speaking

as a visiting freeper?

[SayWhatYo]

119. Nahhh...

I'm not nutty enough to be one of them... Why would you make such assumptions?

[Catherine Vincent]

126. I ain't hugging any Freeper!

No way!

[SayWhatYo]

157. Just plug your nose...

[justiceischeap]

122. Uh-oh, I'm an 'offended' lesbian...

Just because some people are savvy enough to make an articulate argument they feel the ad was making fun of homophobia, an equally articulate person can state the case for being offended.

Here's why I was 'offended' with 'offended' not necessarily being the correct word for my take on it—I found it more worrisome than offensive. I think we can all agree that homophobes come from a place of fear and lack of education. So those same people that lack the education about homosexuality are going to get the nuance that the ad execs were making fun of homophobia? I think not. Joe Schmoe average American guy is not going to see it that way, he's going to laugh because obviously one gay was a latent 'fag' and deserved to get the shit beat out of him. That's how it's going to play to the average American homophobe. The act of two men kissing is enough for one of them to get killed in our United States—ask Mathew Shepards' mom why her son was tortured and killed, because he made the mistake of "coming onto" a straight man and we all know how that straight man and his friend dealt with their insecurity—pretty much how any gay man or lesbian is treat during a homophobic attack. So here we have a commercial where two men "accidentally, almost" kiss and then begin to beat the shit out of each other. What kind of message is that sending to the less savvy and articulate, what kind of message is it going to send to kids who aren't as savvy as the OPs kid? It's sending a message of violence pure and simple and that's troubling. Then the website shows the campaign for what it was intended to be, homophobic.

This is an ad that in my best guess was created to be as ambiguous as possible. Homophobes can get a laugh out of it because two 'fags' are beating the shit out of each other, because guess what, that's how homophobes are going to see it because in a homophobes mind, a 'manly man' would never allow himself to be in such a 'queer' situation. Then there is the other side of the fence where they could make the argument that, "No, no, no, we weren't making fun of gays, we were making fun of homophobes!" Though, personally, I don't see the Mars company coming down on that side of the argument.

As far as people telling me I can't feel a certain way about an ad because I see it from a different perspective than they do, shame on you! That would be like me telling you that you were wrong for thinking the way you do.

[SayWhatYo]

129. Third view...

Perhaps, just perhaps, they the people who came up with the idea were thinking of neither. Maybe, everyone is over-analyzing the meaning behind the commercial.

[Darkhawk32]

137. Bingo. n/t

[justiceischeap]

142. Sorry but I respectfully disagree

I've worked in advertising and they knew full well this would be offensive. All these ads go through focus groups, legal departments, more focus groups before being aired on National television.

Hell even their spokeswoman said:
""We know that humor is highly subjective and understand that some people may have found the ad offensive..." she wrote."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17011630/

[SayWhatYo]

156. You may be right...

In fact I am sure that at some point someone pointed out that some may find it offensive. However, I am thinking that it was not their initial intent to have any sort of message.

[pnwmom]

166. Okay, so why do the Snickers people want their candy

to be associated with two guys kissing? Are they trying to make sure that homophobes won't buy it?

:sarcasm:

[bettyellen]

145. the ad agency did not market analysis, no focus groups? LOL? what quaint planet are

you living on? Fer fucks sake, it's the most expensive ad dollars of the year.
They thought a lot more about this than you could ever imagine. These things take months and months and endless meetings and it is all about demographics. Maybe you ought to read up on how the ad world works!

[pnwmom]

168. So how do you think they thought it would increase their sales

to associate in people's minds the idea of a Snicker's bar and two men kissing each other?

I don't get it.

[bettyellen]

172. the original idea? the brokeback controversy... play on how popular it was

but how guys couldn't deal with it. gives something for the men and women at the superbowl party to bicker over.
i do agree they were trying ot have it both ways- be homophobic, and have their girlfriends laugh at them for it.

[pnwmom]

174. But if they're trying to appeal to homophobes, how does that work?

Wouldn't homophobes be less likely to eat Snickers if they associate the candy with men kissing?

[bettyellen]

177. welll, as they all point out, they weren't kissing....

they were so enamoured with the snickers. dumb concept, i know. but i'd have t say it was borne out of the brokeback thing... they figured there was obviously a newly acknowledged mainstream audience who wouldn;t 100% freak over gay references, the gay thing became topical because of brokeback.... marry that to their typical neandrathal demographic, and voila. something to argue about with your less homophobic girlfriend.
i think the idea was to get major buzz, and they did it. they just went waay over the top with the wrench and the suicide. not too smart, and definitely a nod to the homophobes.

[pnwmom]

179. I completely agree about the website. By the way, it's been pulled.

[bettyellen]

183. thank god, i really do think they got away with sort of playing everyone

against each other... but at it's heart the premise is offensive- IF you stop to think about it, and IF you care about gay rights.
I think they did the math and calcualted that was one too many ifs for their audience and they'd be okay.
I don;t think there woulda been half the brou ha ha without the offensive net stuff.
after hearing about the other commercials, the increase in violence is freaking me out though.

[pnwmom]

190. I still don't get how they thought this would raise their sales.

On the one hand, to risk offending gays. On the other, to disgust homophobes by linking Snickers with the picture of two men in lip-lock.

This won't go down as a successful campaign.

[bettyellen]

198. all i can think of is that there's tremendous pressure to get your super bowl ad

talked about. and in that way they sure succeeded. but i think you're right, they went for risky and screwed up alright.

[pnwmom]

132. Thanks for a really thoughtful post, thecorrection.

But I'm wondering about your statement about the men beating each other up? The ad I saw ended when one guy said "do something manly" and at least one of them (maybe both, I don't remember), ripped a patch of hair out of his own chest. The ad didn't show them beating each other up.

I also wonder why the ad makers would want their chocolate to be linked in people's minds with the act of two men kissing. Any thoughts?

[justiceischeap]

140. Yes, plenty of thoughts :)

It's pandering to both sides of the fence but it obviously backfired for them. Like I stated in my previous post, my thought was that they were attempting to play to both gay folks and homophobes. However, I'll agree that the worse part of the homophobia took place on their site, which is where the commercial was directing people. Afterthekiss.com is the one that had the more violent ads and had the football players' reactions.

But just imagine a teen-ager wrestling with their sexuality, already feeling like something is wrong with them because they are so different sees this ad and then sees the men act in disgust over an "accidental" kiss by two men. What kind of message is that sending to these already overwhelmed kids? The commercial is just wrong on so many levels.

I'm fortunate that my family has accepted my sexuality but I had some serious emotional issues with it when I was younger and scared as hell I was going to be disowned when I finally came out at the age of 21. I even went so far as to get married to a man at the age of 19 and this was only 17 years ago. Though we've come a long way in a lot of respects we've taken so many steps back in others as proven by that commercial.

I just want to note, I saw an IKEA commercial this morning and it had two women cuddling in a bed together and guess what, no one was getting beat up for it. They treated it as if it were no big deal and guess what, it isn't.

[pnwmom]

149. IKEA is great that way. They've had lots of print ads with gay or lesbian

couples, but I haven't seen any on TV.

Thanks for speaking up for free speech in your first post. I forgot to mention that before. I'd been running into that "you're either with us, or you're agin us" attitude a lot in this thread.

[justiceischeap]

152. I'm a firm believer in free speech and free thought

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you have to agree with me. I think being adult enough to have a rational discussion about hot topics is lacking on DU sometimes.

Plus you know the old saying, "Opinions are like a**holes, everbody has one." ;)

[TahitiNut]

170. Your last sentence sums up this whole 'debate,' imho.

"As far as people telling me I can't feel a certain way about an ad because I see it from a different perspective than they do, shame on you! That would be like me telling you that you were wrong for thinking the way you do."

DUers on all 'sides' of this are engaging in the same crap. Another feeding frenzy ... personal attacks, inquisitions, and snark reign supreme. Messenger-focused instead of message-focused with the vigilantes out in force, screaming into an echo chamber. There are only friendly fire casualites in such 'discussions.' People playing 'gotcha' games -- all "eye of the beholder" and very little listening. Disgusting. Even more disgusting than the ad (at least the one I saw) itself, imho. It'd take recent passenger on the turnip truck to not see that they were "stirring the pot" and exploiting controversy, imho. D'oh!

I think I'll take a break and watch "Will and Grace." :eyes:

[spoony]

143. Has anyone seen "Idiocracy"?

In a lot of ways it reminds me of the ad in question. The story is basically that a guy is frozen for 500 years and when he wakes up he's shocked to see American society has continued its dumbing-down trend right to the bottom of the barrel. The people in the future call him gay for being able to read and solve rudimentary problems. They call each other gay when they try to use their brains.

I took that to be a satirical attack on the homophobic, anti-intellectual cavemen our society often churns out (and who'll rule the whole country if it continues!). Are the people offended by the snickers ad also offended by the Idiocracy?

[Maven]

147. No. Because that's actual satire.

Satire is built on IRONY. Like Louis CK saying "there's not a gay bone in my body" and then talking for 10 minutes about wanting to fuck Ewan McGregor. Irony.

In the example you cite, the premise for their behavior--ignorance--is the subject of ridicule. In the ad, the kiss itself is made grotesque to amplify the "ew, gross" effect in the viewer. Their subsequent behavior makes them look ridiculous, but doesn't invalidate the gross-out reaction the ad deliberately creates. We're left thinking their behavior is overboard and ridiculous yet somehow "justified." Thus, the behavior itself is subject to ridicule, but not the premise for that behavior (homophobia). See the difference?

I can't pick apart this ad anymore...it should seem pretty obvious by now.

[spoony]

150. I saw irony

Those guys literally hurt themselves in their decidedly unmanly insecurity, trying to prove they were manly men.

Idiocracy pushes the envelope far more than the ad. They use the f word for gay people, not just an inference of homophobia but full-on shocking statements. As I recall one line was, "Why come you're trying to read that word, are you a f****t?"

[Maven]

153. Please read my edited post.

It distinguishes the two more clearly.

[spoony]

160. It's not that I don't understand

what you and others are saying, I just don't think it's cut and dry. How can we comment on the motive behind an ad? We don't know the writers or director, all we saw was the, yes, homophobic reaction of some NFL players. Now that is perfectly obvious in its ugliness, but I think those players might react the same to other instances of satire that lampoon homophobia.

[Maven]

164. "How can we comment on the motive behind an ad"

How about some circumstantial evidence?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x136830

The makers of the ad considered giving the ad to GLAAD to get clearance before running it and then withdrew the offer a day later. Obviously, they knew exactly what they were doing and whom they were about to insult.

[Bluebear]

176. The makers of the ad considered giving the ad to GLAAD to get clearance??

Well there goes the "it lampoons homophobes" schtick!

[pnwmom]

180. How come?

[Bluebear]

181. Because they knew it was potentially inflammatory towards gays

And having considered it, they decided NOT to consult GLAAD and run it anyhow. Seems pretty clear.

[pnwmom]

191. Another possibility is that they were more concerned about keeping

the end of the commercial under wraps. They had been trying to build up a mystery about the commercial even before it aired.

From the press release:

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=211004

Snickers is leaping into the Super Bowl fray with an ad that's sure to satisfy fans' desire for laughter and being a part of the action. The ending of the new commercial will remain under wraps until it airs on Super Bowl Sunday, but a few star players from the Chicago Bears and the Indianapolis Colts have been treated to a "sneak peek" of the entire ad. In the ad, two mechanics share a Snickers Bar that will change both of them forever. Consumers can preview the first portion of the spot at www.SnickersSatisfies.com, and then see the surprise ending on Super Bowl Sunday.

[Bluebear]

192. It is a mystery why it aired, alright. nt

[Maven]

193. Then why would they have considered consulting GLAAD in the first place?

Tell me something: Is the sky blue? :argh:

[pnwmom]

196. Who knows how seriously they considered it?

Maybe they were dumb enough to think that gays and lesbians wouldn't find it offensive.

Or maybe they thought about consulting GLAAD, but changed their minds because they decided it was more important to keep the ending under wraps. Who knows?

(And no, actually, the sky isn't blue. We just perceive it as blue, if we have the requisite structure in our eyes. That is, except for people living in Seattle where for nine months of the year it is almost always gray.)

[Darkhawk32]

148. Bingo. Exactly. It was a stupid, idiotic commercial.