OK, has anyone else seen the new MySky 'Que Sera Sera' advertisement on TV? I'm linking to it HERE but I didn't want to embed such a thing on this site. I don't consider myself a prude, and I like a good laugh as much as anyone but the ad seems in incredibly bad taste to me. On first viewing I had my mouth hanging open, incredulous that someone would actually make an ad like this. It's supposed to be funny, but having a guy's hands bitten off by a shark, and showing him at the end of the ad with disabled appendages clutching a SKY remote just seems....well...
It seems to me like these ad agencies are recruiting immature young people from right out of design school, whose infantile idea of humour is Something About Mary or American Pie.
Not funny guys, not funny.
I doubt it will be long before some disability group lodges a complaint.
It seems to me like these ad agencies are recruiting immature young people from right out of design school, whose infantile idea of humour is Something About Mary or American Pie.
Not funny guys, not funny.
I doubt it will be long before some disability group lodges a complaint.
I saw it last night. I was horrified. I couldn't believe what I was seeing by the time they got to the bit with the guy with his hands bitten off. Most ads are just stupid, but this one is truly offensive. Except to sickos.
ReplyDeleteMy goodness
ReplyDeleteI agree with you
The best and only effective regulation is your wallet. Don't buy sky if you don't like their marketing. You could even write to them and complain about it.
ReplyDeletePersonally I just think it's rather lame, pun not intended. I don't have a tv but I wouldn't be motivated to get sky if I did have one.
The best and only effective regulation is your wallet.
ReplyDeleteGreat icon, but your philosophy seems to be more Ayn Rand than Thomas Aquinas.
Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, and her main point in the book seemed to be that if the productive geniuses withdrew from society, society would be taught a lesson and they would come back in glory to grow as wealthy as they liked off the backs of willing low cost labour.
And so it goes with today's initial suggestions: If you don't like Sky's advertisement, dteach them a lesson by not watching your favourite sport.
If you don't like what National or Labour are doing to the country, then move to Australia.
If you don't like the fact that shopping is more important than our heritage, then stay at home and be quiet.
In other words, do not engage in the field of ideas, do not fight and argue for what you believe in, do not attempt to make people reconsider their opinion, or even to form their own opinion rather than use the one offered by Main Stream Media.
Withdraw.
Is the only effective regulation your wallet? I think we are not quite there yet, but certainly that sentiment speaks to the way society has become.
No public holidays, so we can open our wallets. Or we could prove we are free by opening our wallets on another day.
What a culturally and morally poor society we have become.
ZenTiger: I don't know who you were arguing against just now but it wasn't me. How on earth did you misconstrue "write to complain" as "withdraw from society"!? I think before you start waxing lyrical about philosophers I didn't reference you might want to read the few paltry words I actually wrote to begin with.
ReplyDeleteHowdy. I was indeed arguing with you Nyokodo. I'll clarify for you:
ReplyDeleteFirstly, you said:
How on earth did you misconstrue "write to complain" as "withdraw from society"
No misconstrual. What I described was your suggestion to withdraw from Sky TV as a general symptom of Libertarian mantra, as expressed in the ideas behind Atlas Shrugged.
Did you suggest withdrawing from Sky TV? Let me quote:
The best and only effective regulation is your wallet. Don't buy sky if you don't like their marketing.
I then drew parallels with that particular line of argument. I add though that I do not for one moment think you are suggesting withdrawing from society. The remainder of my argument was a general rant against the generic argument I see being advanced that revolves around both money and withdrawal.
It was only because you used the word "only", as in The best and only effective regulation is your wallet. that I decided to make a bigger point. Now I fully realise that you used "only" to add a bit of force to the idea, but it nevertheless illustrates to me the insidious idea that we are supposed to like it or lump it, and not to complain (argue for our beliefs) but withdraw from the battle.
Your second suggestion - write a complaint - I fully support. But it was hardly worth me talking about the aspects of your comment I agree with - the blog is there to provoke discussion. You know this well, since your recent comments were quite provocative themselves.
You poked with a stick, and I in good spirit, responded. Did you expect any less? :-)
I was not advancing any kind of withdrawal from society at all and in no way. Voting with your wallet is not a withdrawal, it's in fact a very profoundly strong public statement. Whether you stand up and argue for what is right is different than HOW you deal with an issue. One way is to try and get Government to solve the problem, this is fraught with problems as Government is generally lumbering, disinterested and incompetent. Another way is to use profit seeking self interest to engineer the market towards the good, this makes the perpetrators WANT to be good little corporate boys and girls. Personally I think that Government force in this area is outside the bounds of the role of Government, however even if you disagree Government still cannot do a good job and never does.
ReplyDeleteI was not advancing any kind of withdrawal from society at all and in no way.
ReplyDeleteYeah, right.
Don't like a 30 second advertisement, so cancel your entire subscription.
If that's not a withdrawal tactic, I don't know what is.
Not that I'm against it - I might do the same if the principle was important enough to me.
I'm still going to draw parallels to this style of approach and how people argue that "money talks" as a first port of call.
As for your observations about government interference, well I'm a small government kind of guy so I largely agree with you. However, even a small government needs to be capable of using force. Collectively, we get to argue about how that force can be applied wisely and with justice.