I just watched a programme on channel 4. It was about advertisments that have been banned, during or before they were shown. And seriously, I found NOT 1 offensive.
What does this lead me to conclude?
Well, some advertisments are disappointing. I mean, seeing Sean Connery (in a Japanese advert on which 'lost in translation' was based) try to sell Whisky is pretty depressing...or Jay Leno trying to sell crisps...AAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....
But, I have to conclude that:
1. I have no problems with commercials showing gay relationships
2. I have no problems with commercials poking fun at religion or atheism
3. I have no problems with commercials using children to promote anti-smoking campaigns (3 year olds smoking)
4. I have no problems with commercials using death, sex (vibrators through masturbation to bestiality through famous people), children or
stereotypes to promote their products.
5. Any form of sarcams being used to sell a product.
BUT
I do generally have problems with adverts that bore me.
As if I care what washing liquid is going to clean my clothes? Or if some or other company is willing to lend me money.
NO THESE ADVERTS SUCK.
Let me enjoy funny, original and creative short films which in their funding need to promote something!
I am shocked by nothing! What else can I conclude?
Well, maybe I'm shocked that people really buy something they see in a commercial. Maybe I'm really shocked that people complain about adverts using situations or people instead of the fact that an advert is trying to brainwash you into buying something...
Maybe, just maybe...people whine too much about what is acceptible and what is not.
For example: There is an advert of Kylie Monogue riding a rodeo bull in her underwear (ARE YOU STILL LISTNING??? KYLIE IN HER KNICKERS) which has never been shown. Because it is evil.
YET...I have to suffer multiple boring adverts on how to save a couple of pennies by selling my soul to some boring company who will relieve me of all my debts at a 11% rate....
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what shocks me.
Not porn. Not a penis. Not a kid smoking a cigar. Not a famous actor selling himself (although it is pretty embarrassing). Not breasts. Not drugs. Not swearing.
No, what shocks me is that DECENT ad's are allowed, which are basically asking you to spend more money to buy more things you don't need. OR even worse...to spend money to pay off the debts you have because you felt you needed to buy more things you didn't need in the first place.
Obviously I'm misguided on this, but I just thought I'd share it with you none the bloody less!
Originally posted by shavixmir....mmm, Kylie's knickers.....
I just watched a programme on channel 4. It was about advertisments that have been banned, during or before they were shown. And seriously, I found NOT 1 offensive.
What does this lead me to conclude?
Well, some advertisments are disappointing. I mean, seeing Sean Connery (in a Japanese advert on which 'lost in translation' was based) try to sell Wh ...[text shortened]... bviously I'm misguided on this, but I just thought I'd share it with you none the bloody less!
I saw some of this programme.
The one which made me laugh was for a shaving razor "which will give you a shave so close, women will slip off your face", accompanied by a video of a couple in bed engaging in foreplay, the camera pans away and the women is heard to fall from the bed onto the floor.
Originally posted by RedmikeNow see that's funny! That's creative and it takes talent to come up with the idea and then produce, direct, and record it. But that's what gets banned.
I saw some of this programme.
The one which made me laugh was for a shaving razor "which will give you a shave so close, women will slip off your face", accompanied by a video of a couple in bed engaging in foreplay, the camera pans away and the women is heard to fall from the bed onto the floor.
Shav's right.
I was genuinely shocked to learn last week that the slave trade continues to this day in Niger in West Africa. The slaves have to wear brass rings round their ankles to indicate their status (or lack of it). A few thousand have just been given their freedom, but many more continue to be 'owned' by the paler skinned elite.
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeyWhy was this "shocking"? Niger joined the UN 20 Sept. 1960 and slavery has never abated. Nor has it in fifty other "member" states of the wonderful UN.
I was genuinely shocked to learn last week that the slave trade continues to this day in Niger in West Africa. The slaves have to wear brass rings round their ankles to indicate their status (or lack of it). A few thousand have just been g ...[text shortened]... more continue to be 'owned' by the paler skinned elite.
Rich.
That is what we who oppose the UN have been trying to get across for years. The UN is a bankrupt organization and we need to do away and start a "League of Democracies".
To belong to the UN gives sanction and a blessing to slavery. That is just wrong.
Isn't it? If it is wrong to allow slavery, WHY THE HELL DOESN'T THE UN GO IN WITH COALITION TROOPS AND STOP IT? Notice... I stipulate coalition troops. None of the other so called "progressives" seem to think that abolishing slavery is worth a single life.
For example: There is an advert of Kylie Monogue riding a rodeo bull in her underwear (ARE YOU STILL LISTNING??? KYLIE IN HER KNICKERS) which has never been shown.It has been shown, just maybe not in your current countyr. I saw it at the cinema. Twice. A 12 foot Kylie bucking around in her skimpies. Life can be good! 😛