Does the high frequency of minorities in advertising signal racism is overblown?
Just been thinking that probably about half of all ads I see during commercial breaks prominently feature black actors/spokespeople. Of the other half, you have a very healthy mix of other minorities/lbgt etc
These companies put lots of research behind ad spend efficiency.
It's also not something that's regulated. Yes there is a social nudge for inclusivity, but at the same time, there are no regulations that require diverse spokesmen so this is something which is market driven.
So, if the 75% of america that is white was all racist. Then surely, if they wouldn't want to buy insurance from a company which has black spokespeople, then why have ads like this?
What people say out loud or respond to polls is not reliable. How to respond to advertising, in the privacy of their own homes, where their decision is not up to public scrutiny, is going to be an honest reflection. If white Americans were heavily racist, then surely companies like State Farm would be alienating 75% of their potential clients. Wouldn't they not have all the black actors and spokespeople? If it was about checking diversity boxes, then wouldn't it be some token black guy in the background? Or perhaps an attractive minority female even racists would want to bang?
Or... am I reading that wrong and is that exactly what Jake from State Farm is? A subtle nod to all the ladies, buy our insurance you racist bish and you'll get some bbc nobody will ever know about, it'll be our little secret ok.
So, is Jake a sex symbol for closet racists who need some deep dicking? Or has America outgrown racism and talk about "half the country are white supremacists" and "anyone who voted for Trump is a racist" is all poppycock and overblown?
Just been thinking that probably about half of all ads I see during commercial breaks prominently feature black actors/spokespeople. Of the other half, you have a very healthy mix of other minorities/lbgt etc
These companies put lots of research behind ad spend efficiency.
It's also not something that's regulated. Yes there is a social nudge for inclusivity, but at the same time, there are no regulations that require diverse spokesmen so this is something which is market driven.
So, if the 75% of a
Rickroll, marketing concepts, promotional budgeting, and strategies are general based upon many interrelated, rather than a very few or a single factor. Proportional increases of non-whites displayed in advertisements are not entirely due to one single factor.
Yes, bigotry is less politically correct and more politically incorrect. More people and their children who were openly bigoted in prior years, are now more careful to attribute their bigoted actions and speech to other than racial reasons. Yes, the general public is now more aware and less tolerant of bigotry.
I contend proportional increases of non-whites in advertisements is more due to laws and regulation penalizing illegal acts of bigotry, and the increased purchasing powers of non-whites in the USA. The overwhelming majority of those who are less tolerant of non-whites (if they have something to sell), are eager to sell their products and not reluctant to accepting non-white's money. It's not a case of “black is beautiful or less ugly; its a case of green and gold, (everyone's money is beautiful. Respectfully, Supposn
So the response to racism against minorities is...moar racism against minorities? Lay off the shatter mate.
I don’t think you understand how racism works. Racism is saying one class of people is better than another due to their race. Helping a class of people that have been disproportionately affected by racism is not racist.
Helping someone doesn’t mean they are better or worse than other races; it means that they need help, maybe more help than other races
What definition of racism are you guys using?
Yes it’s fine if you help 100 people of one class and one or two people of another class don’t get the same love.
You're the one who seems to be okay with anti Semitism and racism against Asians, I'm going by your own words here.
I don’t think you understand how racism works. Racism is saying one class of people is better than another due to their race. Helping a class of people that have been disproportionately affected by racism is not racist.
Helping someone doesn’t mean they are better or worse than other races; it means that they need help, maybe more help than other races
What definition of racism are you guys using?
Yes it’s fine if you help 100 people of one class and one or two people of another class don’t ge
Directing limited resources to one group means denying those resources to another group. If the determination of which groups to allocate resources to is based on a criterion of race, then that resource allocation is racist, at least in a certain sense of the word.
You are correct that such a program may not be motivated by racial animosity, so in that sense it wouldn't be racist.
The valid debate is not over what sense of the word "racist" we want to use, the debate should be over to what extent racial criteria should be used in resource allocation decisions.
As far as the debate about how the advertising budgets of businesses should be allocated, I think the most valid system is to leave it to the discretion of the shareholders and managers of those businesses and let the market decide.
I don’t think you understand how racism works. Racism is saying one class of people is better than another due to their race. Helping a class of people that have been disproportionately affected by racism is not racist.
Helping someone doesn’t mean they are better or worse than other races; it means that they need help, maybe more help than other races
What definition of racism are you guys using?
Yes it’s fine if you help 100 people of one class and one or two people of anot
If you "help" by allocating scarce resources by law you are actively damaging everyone else.
And that's racism if the damaged groups are racially identifiable.
If you donate your own resources only to blacks that's not racism, because other races had no claim on those resources.
If you use taxpayer money's to only help blacks that's racism instead.
Is that clearer?
Directing
The valid debate is not over what sense of the word "racist" we want to use, the debate should be over to what extent racial criteria should be used in resource allocation decisions.
For public money, or allocation of otherwise scarce public resources, the constitutional answer is very clear and it's "never, no exceptions".
What? Are you taking the pi... I mean, sure pw here y'go.
Seems like a small price to pay in order to help level the playing field that the racists in America made
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
If you need any more reminders on stuff you said about three short posts ago then do let me know.
Directing limited resources to one group means denying those resources to another group. If the determination of which groups to allocate resources to is based on a criterion of race, then that resource allocation is racist, at least in a certain sense of the word.
You are correct that such a program may not be motivated by racial animosity, so in that sense it wouldn't be racist.
The valid debate is not over what sense of the word "racist" we want to use, the debate should be over to what exten
Does the government have a responsibility to make sure everyone is treated equitably?
If you "help" by allocating scarce resources by law you are actively damaging everyone else.
And that's racism if the damaged groups are racially identifiable.
If you donate your own resources only to blacks that's not racism, because other races had no claim on those resources.
If you use taxpayer money's to only help blacks that's racism instead.
Is that clearer?
Again that is not racism. You’re misunderstanding the word and applying it incorrectly. Fixing inequity is not racism. Race based solutions are not racism.
Racism is saying or acting like one group is better than the other based on race.
What? Are you taking the pi... I mean, sure pw here y'go.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
If you need any more reminders on stuff you said about three short posts ago then do let me know.
Right that’s not racism
Gosh I (and others) must have misinterpreted your musings so, re racism towards Jews and Asians helping to level the playing field (whatever tf that actually means) as endorsing racism toward Jews and Asians, silly us. I'm sure you have an explanation though, just as I'm sure said explanation won't be big on coherence, so let's just lie I mean say that we clearly misinterpreted your comment which seemed to endorse anti Asian and Jewish racism and leave it at that, to spare us from your further ramblings I mean insights.
giving people extra benefits because they are more in need is not racism.
Again, racism is when you think one race of people is better than the other.
perhaps to you being in need makes someone lesser? but not to me, and I do not see being in need as being more or lesser than anyone.
giving people extra benefits because they are more in need is not racism.
Again, racism is when you think one race of people is better than the other.
perhaps to you being in need makes someone lesser? but not to me, and I do not see being in need as being more or lesser than anyone.
If you select on the basis of need and need alone, and some race gets more help than some other, that's not racism.
Medicaid isn't racism.
But affirmative action is
Again that is not racism. You’re misunderstanding the word and applying it incorrectly. Fixing inequity is not racism. Race based solutions are not racism.
Racism is saying or acting like one group is better than the other based on race.
Right that’s not racism
Taking race into consideration is racism.
Positive discrimination is racism.
Racism should be fully illegal with no exception for the public, and always legal for private actors (you have a right to discriminate, IE to interact as you wish with anyone or not for any reason)
Taking race into consideration isn’t racism
Nice try tho.
Are you one of those “I don’t see race” people?
Taking race into consideration isn’t racism
Nice try tho.
Are you one of those “I don’t see race” people?
No i am "doesn't matter what you see, it should be criminal to take that in consideration" (as a public official).
Btw in many counties is actually illegal to ever take race into consideration
Helping people who have been affected is not the same as saying one race is better than any other.
Needing help doesn’t mean you are better or worse than another race. It just means you need help
Since it’s kind of the definition you’re admitting it isn’t the definition, is that correct
