Re: Thread split from scared of sex: Advertising = dehumanizing?
Sure, it might be a 'first world problem' but i think you are underestimating the malevolence of marketers, the vulnerability to advertising of probably the majority of people (not to mention children) and the impact that the combined effect of these has had on our culture/society as evidenced by the rampant and destructive (to the planet and to individual physical and mental health) consumerism which permeates every aspect of all our lives.
Everyone here keeps making these bold claims, but you do realize the computer you're using to post these claims, and the internet you're posting it on, are both direct products of this consumerism, right? I'm sorry, but it's difficult to take someone seriously when they're enjoying the good life brought about through consumerism while attempting to claim consumerism is an innately bad thing. I won't say there aren't definitely practices some companies take which are pretty bad, some downright evil, but to claim those evils are an innate quality of "consumerism"? How about we blame the guys actually doing the bad shit for the bad shit they do?
It may be easy for you to ignore adverts (or think that you are) but that does not seem to be the case for most people - they believe the adverts, they are made to feel inadequate in a multitude of ways everytime they walk past a billboard and are manipulated in to purchasing shiny trinkets. Corporations hire psychologists to design campaigns which will optimize sales by manipulations so subtle and cunning that most people don't even notice.
Frankly, so what? I don't mind advertisements. They don't bother me because they either inform me of something I want to try, or I don't want what they're offering and, thus, I don't get it. If people's psyches are so weak that they can be convinced they need something to be cooler or more attractive through a 30 second commercial, and that the amount of coolness or attractiveness is worth the money,
and it's actually not, then I say we, perhaps, look into why society's failing at parenting. I don't view that as an evil thing for businesses to do. Of course they're going to sell their product. If they convince you to get their product when you don't actually
want their product, that's far more on you than them.
How can persuading children or those without sharper mental faculties that they will be cooler/more popular/content if they purchase a certain brand of trainers or soda for profit be called anything but dehumanizing? (it certainly can't in the Kantian sense).
Like this; That's totally not dehumanizing. It's trying to convince people to buy your product. Are the products aimed at children ever not actually appropriate for children? Sure, sometimes, but it's not an innate quality of ads targeting children. The thing is, children tend not to have their own money, or, at least, not a lot of it, so this, again, is where parenting steps in. Is .... "Blorp", or whatever that foamy goo is, really as awesome as commercials make it out to be? No. A child can either find that out by playing with some, or by their mother telling them not to believe everything they see on TV. Frankly, actually
getting a product that's not as fun as a commercial makes it out to be is a pretty good lesson to a child, so long as a parent is around to make sure the lesson gets learned.
When i consider how serious some people are about brands etc i find myself drawing parallels between religious affiliation - they are completely programmed full of lies, are unquestioningly loyal to their church/brands and their lives have no meaning but to increase the profits of sociopathic institutions who care not one iota about them as human individuals.
I do the same thing with celebrities... except it's not about these products being a religious symbol, they're a symbol of money, of effectual power. It's essentially wearing your money to attract others. It's not about the brand, it's about socioeconomic status. It's not "Hey, I have Jordans!" It's "Hey, I have enough money to buy Jordans!"
... Which I don't consider a bad thing. I don't consider it especially wise on the part of the consumer, but to claim people are necessarily too stupid to ever figure out that the things you wear don't make you who you are, well, I find that silly. Even if they are too stupid, if they can afford it, let them get whatever they want.
And the business not caring one iota about them "as humans"?... What does that even mean? They're trying to sell a product. It doesn't matter if they even know your name, you either want it or you don't, you either buy it, or you don't. Do you expect them to treat you like a friend from high-school, or something? Within the context of the purchasing and selling to/from one-another, you don't even
know one-another! I fail to see how this is even remotely a problem. Do you expect them to ask how your parents are doing? It's not like they're stealing from you, or something. They're not disregarding your human rights or dignity, they simply aren't your friend. Outside of your business arrangement, they have no business with you. Should they seek out more interaction from you? Would you like that?
It can certainly be hard to see the extent of the problem when you have grown up knowing nothing else (or even see it at all), but it's there and is quite blatantly obvious to many (most?) of those raised outside the West.
Oh, fuck you. The East is just as consumerist. Even if it weren';t, that doesn't make it a bad thing. I mean, is "Eastern Medicine" better than Western just because it's different? No, because there's no such thing as "Eastern" or "Western" medicine, it's just "medicine". Same thing with economics, just some countries have their government's hands a little deeper or or a little less deep in the nations economy.
