it feels like the ownerclass are running pro lgbtq advertisements
Corporations make inclusive advertisement when it makes them more money than not doing so. You can easily see the same movie studios making fairly different advertisement in EU/USA than in China/Saudi Arabia. This is virtue signalling, but I’m fine with it, because when good values get virtue signalled in public, the opposite values are less likely to transmit. They don’t have good intentions, but good results come out of it.
There are also less common cases where they purposefully make over the top stunts because it will make far right nutjobs angry, which they count as free advertisement.
“This is virtue signalling, but I’m fine with it, because when good values get virtue signalled in public, the opposite values are less likely to transmit. They don’t have good intentions, but good results come out of it.”
US Supreme Court has upheld the ban on religious ads, and my initial comparison between religion and sexual freedom runs deeper. They are very comparable. Both have been persecuted heavily up in history. A big difference is what I posted in a different sub-thread
“Even though I’m an atheist or agnostic, not really sure. Religion is different because they are on both the giving and the recieving end of persecution.They use religion as a base for their persecution of other people of a different religion (or sexual identification, sexual attraction, even something as trivial as dress code). Expressions that are clearly protected within the law.”
Religion within ads are not protected by freedom of expression (acc. to US SC), and a sexual expression as an ad has not, to my knowledge, been challenged in the courts (yet). Correct me if I’m wrong.
“There are also less common cases where they purposefully make over the top stunts because it will make far right nutjobs angry, which they count as free advertisement.”
It’s like burning books or flags, it’s a protected form of expression. Even though these actions are very divisive. I will fight for even these, and the ones you put as examples’ right to express themselves. It’s very much like Noam Chomsky says: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
so you like creating (and when corps create) echo-chambers when they fit the concepts that you want? with all respect possible to give, your logic is therefore not sound
Corporations make inclusive advertisement when it makes them more money than not doing so. You can easily see the same movie studios making fairly different advertisement in EU/USA than in China/Saudi Arabia. This is virtue signalling, but I’m fine with it, because when good values get virtue signalled in public, the opposite values are less likely to transmit. They don’t have good intentions, but good results come out of it.
There are also less common cases where they purposefully make over the top stunts because it will make far right nutjobs angry, which they count as free advertisement.
“This is virtue signalling, but I’m fine with it, because when good values get virtue signalled in public, the opposite values are less likely to transmit. They don’t have good intentions, but good results come out of it.”
US Supreme Court has upheld the ban on religious ads, and my initial comparison between religion and sexual freedom runs deeper. They are very comparable. Both have been persecuted heavily up in history. A big difference is what I posted in a different sub-thread
“Even though I’m an atheist or agnostic, not really sure. Religion is different because they are on both the giving and the recieving end of persecution.They use religion as a base for their persecution of other people of a different religion (or sexual identification, sexual attraction, even something as trivial as dress code). Expressions that are clearly protected within the law.”
Religion within ads are not protected by freedom of expression (acc. to US SC), and a sexual expression as an ad has not, to my knowledge, been challenged in the courts (yet). Correct me if I’m wrong.
“There are also less common cases where they purposefully make over the top stunts because it will make far right nutjobs angry, which they count as free advertisement.”
It’s like burning books or flags, it’s a protected form of expression. Even though these actions are very divisive. I will fight for even these, and the ones you put as examples’ right to express themselves. It’s very much like Noam Chomsky says: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
so you like creating (and when corps create) echo-chambers when they fit the concepts that you want? with all respect possible to give, your logic is therefore not sound