America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,698 comments
- 1,790,995 views
- 2,128
- Malinas
- scaffie78
I got an ad from an extremist right wing party a while ago. I know they put a lot of money in their social media campaigns, i reported it to YT, and told them i did not want to see that ad again, and strangely enough i haven't. Maybe it works in a different way for me, because i live in Belgium.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Trump bashes Democrats' new billionaire-tax plan and suggests he might flee the US but will 'stick it out'
"I just wonder, will I be allowed to run for president again if I move to another country?" ex-President Donald Trump said in a statement Wednesday.
www.businessinsider.com
I'm suddenly liking this billionaire tax thing...
Keef
Premium
- 25,163
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Where else are they going to go, Europe? Europe's taxes are pretty ugly. China? They'll never get their money back out. Africa? Talk about an investment opportunity I suppose. South America? Maybe if they want to get kidnapped and ransomed.
That only really leaves Russia as a place that is friendly to billionaires.
That only really leaves Russia as a place that is friendly to billionaires.
- 29,951
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Why would it impact Trump though? It only affects billionaires with a b.
Trump bashes Democrats' new billionaire-tax plan and suggests he might flee the US but will 'stick it out'
"I just wonder, will I be allowed to run for president again if I move to another country?" ex-President Donald Trump said in a statement Wednesday.
I'm suddenly liking this billionaire tax thing...
Brett
Premium
- 8,632
- Oklahoma
If you are watching on a computer, then you need to uBlock Origin on your browser of choice. If you are watching on mobile, then Firefox with uBlock Origin is the way to go.
The internet without uBlock Origin is awful.
- 40,874
I hope this reconciliation bill fails purely because the alleged final framework that they spent two months accomplishing nothing arguing over it while having the infrastructure bill rot on the vine didn't yank that atrocious grift that they wrote into it specifically to line the UAW's pockets.
Last edited:
- 24,636
- Anoka, MN
I think both sides should be upset with it honestly, it was overall a very poorly done ad which does a bad job of sending the message that people should be accepted for who they are. It very much reeks of the fake social activism companies love to do.
I do find it funny that the biggest problem some people have with it though is the boy wearing a dress and not the random chick showing up unannounced (where were the parents?, Surely they would have at least told him she was coming if they planned for her to be there?), taking the kid a park and than proceeding to kill a kid for bullying him.
- 30,000
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Extremes, perhaps, but I question whether anyone short of an absolute extreme actually thinks anything of it.
But you recognize it as sending that message. It worked. It actually says that better than it says to buy Twix, which is maybe a little strange for a commercial for Twix, but it's a fine message.
Maybe, but whether it's sincere or pandering, it still sends that message. It's not a "we support you" message and it doesn't have to be. It's a fine message.
I don't get this at all. She announced herself. She said she was his new nanny. He said he doesn't need a nanny. She said his parents think he does.
His parents could be at work. Some parents do work. He appears to be a school age boy. Why isn't he at school? Maybe there was a COVID outbreak and kids were sent home. That's one of the perils of in-person schooling right now, and it's surely unnerving for parents who can't plan for consistent care for their kids. We just don't know anything that's not on the screen and we don't have to. It's a commercial. It's not real.
Who says the bully got killed anyway? I gather a lot of the outrage is over that idea, but it's not on the screen. The bully just gets swept away. The boy asked if he'll be back and the nanny said probably. But it's still a commercial. It's still not real. The end of Shrek was far more explicit, with the dragon chomping down on Lord Farquaad and belching out his crown. It was not ambiguous at all, and that's okay because it too was not real.
But people are getting bent out of shape (or are at least pretending to be bent out of shape) over the boy wearing a dress. Some are even saying Twix is pushing transgenderism, but that's not on the screen either. It appears to be a boy in a dress. The girls who tell him it's not Halloween yet seem to recognize he's a boy in his dress and the bully seems to recognize it as well.
This response is funny.
Last edited:
- 24,636
- Anoka, MN
Wouldn't you want your kid to meet the nanny/caretaker before the actual job starts though? It just seems odd to have a complete stranger show up and say "I'm your new nanny" and accept it no questions asked.
It just seems odd to me, if you can't grasp that than I don't know what to tell you.
You left out the part where immediately after sending the kid to the shadow realm she leaves in a hurry with the kid and doesn't seem all that sure that he actually will come back.
As for Shrek, animated violence is quite a bit different than live action violence, even in the eyes of prudish ratings boards.
I also find your "it's not real" but to be rather funny. Does that mean anytime you take issue with something it can simply be written off if the subject is fiction?
Last edited:
- 30,000
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
A scenario in which my real kid is going to be getting a real caretaker because I will be gone for real? Yeah, I'd want them to meet. You probably know where this is headed.
It's clear that this is a sticking point for you, but if you really can't explain why and are making a genuine effort to do so, maybe you need to think about why it's such a sticking point for you.
I suppose I did. Because there were no real-life implications, I was able to see it as sort of cute.
I also left out the part where she told him to buckle his seatbelt. He said he was still wearing his dress. Maybe he was expecting her to tell him to change before they actually left. Maybe his parents would have. She didn't. She asked him if he wanted to wear it and he did, and that was good enough for her. It was sweet, but not overly so.
I also left out the part where he asked her what her favorite color was. They appeared to be coloring at the time. She said her favorite color was black. He may have expected her to say that because of her attire and he asked for a second favorite. He was trying to get to know her. He wasn't being judgmental. That may have been a pleasant surprise. Actually this part mostly reminded me of orientation one year in high school. The kid sitting next to me was talking to the sort of goth girl in front of us and asked if her favorite color was black. She said it wasn't and he followed up to ask if her favorite color was dark black. She laughed and said it wasn't. I don't think he was being judgmental either. I think it was more flirty. She was cute. Is it creepy that I'm thinking back on her being cute when she was probably fifteen at the time and I'm currently much, much older than that?
I really didn't expect to be thinking so much about the ad, but it's actually starting to grow on me where it was previously of no particular interest.
It wasn't really violence in Shrek. I just said it wasn't as ambiguous as the not violence in the Twix commercial. And there's really no functional difference between the two apart from the ambiguity of the latter.
Tangentially, I'd love to discuss ratings boards with a bona-fide libertarian (little l, though I acknowledge you may be a Big L). That's not a dig at libertarians, either. I tend somewhat libertarian even if I don't go into it the way some do. I'm definitely not Big L, though, as the actual party strikes me as too loosey-goosey with some more radical members tending curiously toward religious authoritarianism. I'm mainly talking about Kaitlin Bennett here, but she may only claim to be Libertarian for whatever reason.
I digress. I'd love to discuss ratings because enforcement by government actors strikes me as the sort of free speech concern that's too often tolerated in this country. I'm thinking along the lines of the FCC.
Absolutely. If I legitimately took offense to something fictional--and I'd hope I wouldn't--I'd definitely want someone to remind me that it's fictional so that I might consider why it was an issue.
Last edited:
- 24,636
- Anoka, MN
I'm already bored of this debate and don't really feel any motivation to read this wall of text so I'll leave with a final thought. You read too much into things, I was just having a laugh at how people will focus on one stupid thing while ignoring other glaring issues in the same thing. I wasn't even disagreeing with you yet you still felt the need to sink your teeth in.
So with that, I wish you a good night.
- 30,000
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Gosh, it's a shame you didn't give me notice at the start that you wanted me to uncritically accept what you had to say. I may have still responded but I probably wouldn't have made an effort to appeal to reason.
That's rich. You literally started off, in your first post on the subject, questioning the parents' absence and the insufficient introduction of the nanny.
I know. I was there. I didn't think them to be glaring issues. Suspension of disbelief. Without suspension of disbelief, the biggest sticking point ought to be that there's a literal witch in the commercial.
You get that your posts are still up, don't you? You actually were disagreeing with me. You were disagreeing with me on multiple points. I'm okay with that, mind you. I saw it as an opportunity for meaningful discussion. And now you're compelled to turn it back at me like I'm somehow in the wrong for "sinking my teeth in."
I suppose with this response from me you're going to see fit to ignore me, and that's fine because it just might pre-empt future fruitless endeavors. If you don't ignore me, I'll probably go ahead and simply not reciprocate should you respond to a future post of mine. I thought you were reasonable and I thought this was a reasonable discussion even if we weren't in agreement.
- 6,072
- Simcoeace
I think the Democrats are bungling this. If they called it the Leftist Billionaires Tax (Bezos, Gates, Buffet, Soros, Zuckerberg), they'd have no problem getting Republican support.Trump bashes Democrats' new billionaire-tax plan and suggests he might flee the US but will 'stick it out'
"I just wonder, will I be allowed to run for president again if I move to another country?" ex-President Donald Trump said in a statement Wednesday.
I'm suddenly liking this billionaire tax thing...
- 20,990
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
It's my understanding that it isn't even actually a Twix commercial, but rather, a short film amongst many others that was part of a horror themed short film festival of sorts that Twix was a sponsor of.
Source: https://www.lbbonline.com/news/a-ne...-for-20th-digitals-bite-size-halloween-series
Last edited:
- 30,000
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
There goes the "it doesn't even mention the product it's supposed to be selling" argument. The criticism is even less rational.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
