HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JackRiddler » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 96 Next »

JackRiddler

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 24,757

Journal Archives

Your post is remarkably naive.

"Financial services" is the flag the pirates present until they get close enough to slit your throat. "Wall Street" long ago degenerated into a self-service fraud factory extracting all profit out of the productive sector. Fuck the U.S. economy, the executives and traders are about their own personal enrichment and they will happily see a city burn if it triples their bonus, just as a poacher will kill a six ton elephant and leave it to rot just for 20 lbs of ivory. None of them even see collective interests among themselves, or give a shit about this abstraction, the "economy." Dick Fuld made $400 million in five years and got to keep it, you think he cares about what happened to Lehman? He certainly wouldn't care about YOU. And these are the predators you expect to back Elizabeth Warren in a moment of rational self-enlightenment? Ha ha ha ha ha! They paid for their Clinton and a nice Clinton who would never harm their plunder operation is what they want, not Warren who is the closest thing to an enemy they can conceive at the level of the Senate.

1) They aren't getting their way, they are losing.

2) They are setting it up for Clinton to do it - and she will, no question.

3) They fear it might not be Clinton in the end, and hope to suck Obama into it.

All as a matter of speculation, of course.

Fucking fuckers.

It is totally conceivable that he said it without clearing it with Merkel.

And he will not be "fired" for it because that would involve the fall of her government, a grand coalition with the SPD. It's not impossible she will rebuke him, but I'll bet she will do nothing of the sort, and try to get by with just ignoring it.

Finally, it's also as you imply possible that she's fine with the SPD guy sending the message, while she hews to the official NATO line of war is peace, etc. In no way does this harm her politically at home.

Meh. You are the one pretending to be image-illiterate.

You'd flunk an advertising or art course if you really didn't see the sexualization in the image. But actually I give you more credit than that. You're just a man (presumably) who insists on being "right" and on having a set of simple principles that answer all arguments.

In any case, may a media conglomerate wrap a giant blinking screen billboard display around your bedroom and flash alternating military recruitment and strip club ads 24/7. Because society can't be arranged for your tender sensibilities and no attention should ever be paid to the aesthetics of public spaces. If you're not paying for it, tough!

They can pick a different image to promote the movie...

That's up to them. Currently they're free to buy space and push any image on people involuntarily. I'm not for content restriction (I'd just take down the billboards period).

There is no context for the image. It is a still. You can interpret the things that it doesn't show or what you think happens before or after however you like: fight, rape, dance, whatever. Doesn't matter.

The actual image is of a male strangling fatally a female in a sexualized fashion. It reflects the belief of the promoters that this will sell the film. It reflects their apathy to the fact that they are exploiting an image of violence against women for commercial purposes. It reflects their apathy to how people sensitive to such images might react. (And no, I don't want to mock every possible sensitivity that human beings might have about images in public. There may be a basis to objecting to images of violence, especially superfluous ones whose only function is to make money.) It does so solely for the profit, without art being the intent. (By definition of adverstising, and you don't get to change that.)

Again, I would prefer that no marketing images be thrust at me on the subway. If works of art expressing a human being's views might depict emotionally disturbing matters, I probably wouldn't mind. I do mind exploitation for commercial purposes.

Indeed, whoosh. So much so that it seems deliberate.

The movie is not the poster. The poster is on the street. The street is the context. The image speaks for itself. Most people don't know the movie and don't care. They see the image, no choice in the matter. They see it because it is an advertisement. Someone paid to put this image in front of them.

The poster is not a superhero movie.

The poster is a public display. Its recipients have no choice but to see it. For a minute I thought your question was going to be, how do those responsible for placing this public advertisement go outside without gagging at themselves for choosing an image of sexualized violence against a hot blue woman with her tongue lolling and so obviously thrusting it at the 90% of the people who don't give a shit about the movie and will never see it. Why do they think this sells, and if they do, why do they do it anyway?

Sorry, the movie, character and plot are irrelevant.

This is a poster on the street. It is a paid advertisement targeting the entire public. Currently you will see it all over New York City, I can assure you, whether you want to or not. Everyone sees the poster, whether or not they will ever see the movie, or ever know what the movie is about, who the X-Men are or who Mystique is, or ever care about it. The poster connotes and promotes independently of what the message of the movie may be. The poster forces itself on millions of eyeballs involuntarily. (I can't believe how this elementary point appears to escape a segment of a film's pre-sold fandom every time there is an issue about posters.)

At the very least, the distributors are engaging in a witting public display of sexualized violence against women and not caring about it because they have calculated that it will sell the movie more than not.

James Bond is obviously the cover name for seven agents.

Unless he's an immortal fucking around with villains and communists for sixty years. If you're going to suspend disbelief for this nonsense, you might as well go with what the movies show you.

AP did not report news, AP chose to make news.

AP decided to hold an anonymous poll of supers. AP decided to count them as if they were equivalent to elected and pledged. They decided to report this as a "clinch" that doesn't exist until the convention.

The timing and results of a poll initiated by a news organization are not the same as a "news story" in the sense of an independent development on which the organization reports. These results are an activity of the organization itself. They would not exist at all without the organization deciding to make them exist.

They timed their poll - which, again, is an anonymous survey of unnamed persons who are not in any sense obligated to live by it - for release on the Monday before the last big round of elections.

Anyone would understand in advance that this fucks over the voters and probably screws around with the results.

AP didn't care, they wanted to steal the attention that belongs to the voters in California and five other states.

I can see from this board that for once there are no clear Clinton vs. Sanders lines on the question. Many are disgusted by unscrupulous and irresponsible behavior that would not be possible without a healthy contempt for democracy.

This is the construction of news, not "reporting." These are the actions of media whores without scruples or decency -- people who would trip their grandma down the stairs if it would get them a career boost. Fuck them.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 96 Next »