Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@Crash: " If only I understood the language. Russian?" The commericial is for Fernet Stock i a herbal bitters made in Plzeň-Božkov, Czech Republic. It is flavoured with approximately 14 herbs, imported from the Mediterranean and the Alps. It is also available in a sweeter form as Fernet Stock Citrus. Regards, Ted
@Ted To use your own words, what does this have to do with mutual funds? By the way, if this deeply offensive sexist ad, which objectifies women as blow up dolls you can just deflate and throw away, ran in the U.S., there would be protests in the streets.
Ted's pretty flexible with respect to what's "permissible" on MFO. Basic rule: If Ted posts it, it's OK. Anyone else, different set of rules, as promulgated by... well, Ted, of course!
@Old_Joe: " If Ted posts it, it's OK. Anyone else, different set of rules, as promulgated by... well, Ted, of course!" I couldn't have said it better myself ! Old_Joe your finally starting to get it ! Regards, Ted
@Lewis: If I didn't know better, someone might consider you remarks as that of a left-wing political correctness jerk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Regards, Ted
I really like sexy TV ads. Often they are more entertaining than the shows they sponsor. A few ago, I was especially fond of the Carl's Jr. Ad campaigns. They attracted much attention. I'm not sure what they were selling. Here is an article that nicely summarizes the issues.
.....Jesus H Crotch! From the Carl's, Jr. link: "“There’s a risk in alienating their old base, because people interested in edgy commercials and edgy branding may not be interested in the new branding,” Ernest Baskin, an assistant professor of food marketing at St. Joseph University, told USA Today." ...An Asst. Prof. of food marketing. Just how completely nuts and absurd is that????? Let me repeat what someone told me lately, to describe our present state of affairs: "Anything goes, and nothing matters."
In my next life, I'm going to be something super-special and unique, like an Asst. Prof. of food marketing! : In my case, I wanna be a left-handed doorknob installer, but only for government-subsidized housing locations surrounded solely by elm trees...
And if that doesn't work out, it will be alright: the professor will still give me a fancy-looking certificate for merely having participated. With no marks on it at all in red ink, because such a thing can be distressing for students. (That's a real thing! I shit you not!)
Hmm, I dunno about that, it's just ignorant sexist rudeness. I'm all for that, sometimes, some places, some material, sure. But stupid Don Rickles ads (not even that, actually), what's the point? Maybe it's partly cuz I've worked in advertising and know what gets rejected (horrible) and approved (often as horrible). It's as though some posters can't possibly imagine who reads here. Often it's an awfully unsophisticated site (the discussion part) even for financial information, compared with some of the swift and savvy ones. Greatest generation is my parents, in my history, and this boomer was born waaaay before 1960, but not with the GG. And yeah, I remember well back when unplugging your wife's yap was a thing. It was tired even then. Dean Martin, huh.
@Maurice- why would you, of all people, request restriction of free speech? I support the ACLU to protect it, and you want to do away with it. What the hell kind of conservative are you?
Just days after her downfall, Bill Maher, your comedic hero, got away with insulting the nation and a very large oppressed minority group. Maher faced close to zero criticism, at least from the left.
A. I never said Maher was my "comedic hero." And B. Maher has been and continues to be roundly criticized by the left for many of his comments, so much so that he can't perform or speak at most college campuses because liberal students will protest him. Maher responds that such students are being too politically correct, and he's right. Censorship is never the answer. But just as Ted is free to post asinine misogynistic ads, other posters are allowed to criticize those posts and call them out for what they are. But suddenly when someone posts a humorous response from Maher to this rampant misogyny in our culture and POTUS, that's when you say "shut it down." The usual double standard.
Maurice writes only like your basic reactionary blowhard who gives no real, much less disinterested, thought to anything that provokes him:
yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, what about her emails,
and Griffin, why, she insulted the nation, and worse,
and you snowflakes, what's wrong w deflating some yakking broad,
yada yada yada.
Lolz. The web is full of such. Please, not here so much.
Better things to do, any of us, I suggest, including Maurice, and even ol' useful Ted, even now looking anew for tired old sitcom clips pour épater la bourgeoisie, Lucy, Kingfish, et alia.
Hey, Kingfish was one of my favorite characters on that show, along with Algonquin J. Calhoun. I certainly didn't project their performance as being representative of "blacks"- just mendacity and sometimes total stupidity, as with the rest of the human race. The women were the only ones with any sense on that show, just as in The Honeymooners. Did anyone project the antics of Jackie Gleason and Art Carney as being representative of the "white" population? Of course not.
All In The Family... that was a different kettle of fish. Lots of serious commentary between the laughs on that show. I have to wonder if a show like that could even run today without crucifixion from our "progressive" left. I can hear the screams, and see the placards already. No iffy humor allowed... someone might have their precious delicate feelings hurt, requiring a "quiet room" and therapy for a few years. Boy, have we progressed, or what?
>> my humor went over your head >> one entity has virtual control over it. >> cannot evade responsibility for your actions, so I have a right to criticize. >> comparing Obama to an ape >> Lewis and I would not be treated equally >> through intimidation, like boycotts, >> I made you cry
Once upon a time, white western/European types were convinced that only their culture was a real culture. To think and do things the way Queen Victoria arranged things was the only option, otherwise, you were uncivilized. We're beyond that now. What I don't like is when "tolerance" and "understanding" get bent-over backwards to the point where you're not allowed a sense of humor, or when Big Brother (Orwell, 1984) tells you what to think. "Thought Police." It used to be that gay-jokes were common. No more. There's no JOKE there, anymore. We learn, we accept., we recognize and acknowledge new information.
The "battle between the sexes" will never end. Political humor is here to stay, too. But back to my point: "tolerance" and "understanding have become--- and not too seldom--- mollycoddling. Since the Enlightenment, but starting in the Renaissance, a huge, fundamental cultural-societal shift has taken place, and it is particularly in evidence in our "have it your way, just the way you like it, right now" consumerist-society: it is the tectonic shift away from objective knowledge and the recognition that we are all in this together, toward--- on the other hand--- an extreme over-emphasis on whatever the individual may want, regardless of conventional norms, regardless of The Obvious, regardless of ANYTHING. I want it the way I want it, because it pleases me, whether or not my predilection corresponds to reality.
A case in point is the recent news piece in which a British Columbia parent of a young child has decided NOT to identify as either male nor female, and wants her baby's sex to be determined by the baby, later on, when he or she(?) chooses something from the menu. (Guffaw.) ... Believe it or not, the B.C government granted the request, so the baby's sex is designated "U" for "unidentified."
Political correctness taken to an absurd extreme. Ted's original post was funny BECAUSE it is politically incorrect. Many of you know my Leftist political leanings. I don't mean (merely) the Democratic Party. But I refuse to be so utterly overly-aware of hurting someone's feelings that laughter is not allowed anymore. Some things cannot be just a free-for-all. Some laws and conventions exist because they JUST MAKE SENSE. "You can't always get what you want." Deal with it. An ordered society cannot operate on the basis of whatever crazy notion some very weird people are feeling on any given day. Things are just getting to be cuckoo-nuts. Communication in the mail from State government in 14 languages? Get outa Dodge. Oops. Yes, this is my longest post in quite a while...
@Maurice The only problem is the video I posted wasn't about comparing the president to an ape which is proof positive you didn't even watch it before condemning it. It references for a few seconds a lawsuit the Snowflake in Chief filed because of that comparison but that is not what it's about. As far as one sided political conversations, well you need look no further than the original poster that started this thread as proof that the one-sidedness is largely in the other direction. Ted is constantly trying to shut down legitimate political discussions with "What does this have to do with mutual funds?" And "time to shut this thread down." My original post was merely to point this hypocrisy out with regard to this totally unrelated offensive video he posted. When Old Joe ponted out this double standard--that a different set of rules seem to apply for Ted--Ted agreed with him. I never said to shut the thread down. You said that. I am merely stating that it is unfair to tell others to stop talking about unrelated topics when you start a thread as totally unrelated and offensive as this one. Yet I defend Ted's right to post this video even if I find it offensive. But it's also my right to say it's offensive and if it's his right to post that video, it is equally my right to post the one from Bill Maher. That's what freedom of speech is about.
The thing is tastes in humor vary and change. They're time bound and often culturally, contextually, politically and geographically dependent. I saw Old Joe referenced the Honeymooners in his post. When I was a child, I thought the Honeymooners was hilarious. Now it's hard to find a show in which a man threatens to punch his wife in the face every episode particularly funny. It's not because it "shocks me" and I find it "politically incorrect." I just don't find it all that funny anymore.
But context and time period are important when evaluating that show. I think part of what made the show socially acceptable when it originally aired in the 1950s is the understanding that Ralph never would or did punch Alice in the face. Yet that undertow of violence is actually there simultaneously--creating a comic tension--which was acceptable then because Alice often wins in their battle of wills.
Yet Old Joe says
Did anyone project the antics of Jackie Gleason and Art Carney as being representative of the "white" population? Of course not
I completely disagree with that. Having lived in New York, I can tell you that Ralph Kramden is a beloved character who is seen as representative of the working man of that era in New York, so much so they erected a statue of him--not Gleason, note, but Kramden the character--right outside of the Port Authority Bus Terminal where many people arrive when they first come to New York: The thing is in the U.S. a lot of men did then and continue to beat their wives today. The knowledge of that fact--and the social unacceptability of that fact--now makes lines like"One of these days, Alice, pow right in the kisser!" not quite so amusing to some people. It is the closeness of that reality--the real violence that occurs and is openly discussed--that I think makes it less funny than it once was. Yet being once removed from the violence can make something still funny--to me at least. For instance, I find Warner Brothers cartoons still funny because we know these are cartoon characters and when someone shoots Bugs in the face he just dusts himself off, gets up and walks away.
But tastes differ too, and I recognize people are of different ages on this board. Someone who grew up in the 1950s may still mentally be in the 1950s in a lot of ways and not understand why something they definitely don't find funny is now considered funny today or why something that was funny in the 1950s isn't considered funny now. What I reject is Crash's assertion that Ted's post is somehow universally funny. It ain't to me. Similarly, folks like Maurice and Ted probably don't find Maher funny. Different strokes.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
Regards,
Ted
Regards,
Ted
Maybe if you added some more exclamation points or used all-caps your witticisms would be even subtler and more nuanced.
I really like sexy TV ads. Often they are more entertaining than the shows they sponsor. A few ago, I was especially fond of the Carl's Jr. Ad campaigns. They attracted much attention. I'm not sure what they were selling. Here is an article that nicely summarizes the issues.
http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2017/03/30/carls-jr-says-goodbye-to-sexy-burger-ads.html
Well, I'm not really sure how effective the article is, but the Links to the Carl's ads yield terrific video illustrations. Please give them a try!
Best Wishes
"“There’s a risk in alienating their old base, because people interested in edgy commercials and edgy branding may not be interested in the new branding,” Ernest Baskin, an assistant professor of food marketing at St. Joseph University, told USA Today."
...An Asst. Prof. of food marketing. Just how completely nuts and absurd is that????? Let me repeat what someone told me lately, to describe our present state of affairs: "Anything goes, and nothing matters."
In my next life, I'm going to be something super-special and unique, like an Asst. Prof. of food marketing! : In my case, I wanna be a left-handed doorknob installer, but only for government-subsidized housing locations surrounded solely by elm trees...
And if that doesn't work out, it will be alright: the professor will still give me a fancy-looking certificate for merely having participated. With no marks on it at all in red ink, because such a thing can be distressing for students. (That's a real thing! I shit you not!)
Maybe it's partly cuz I've worked in advertising and know what gets rejected (horrible) and approved (often as horrible). It's as though some posters can't possibly imagine who reads here.
Often it's an awfully unsophisticated site (the discussion part) even for financial information, compared with some of the swift and savvy ones.
Greatest generation is my parents, in my history, and this boomer was born waaaay before 1960, but not with the GG. And yeah, I remember well back when unplugging your wife's yap was a thing. It was tired even then. Dean Martin, huh.
@Maurice A. I never said Maher was my "comedic hero." And B. Maher has been and continues to be roundly criticized by the left for many of his comments, so much so that he can't perform or speak at most college campuses because liberal students will protest him. Maher responds that such students are being too politically correct, and he's right. Censorship is never the answer. But just as Ted is free to post asinine misogynistic ads, other posters are allowed to criticize those posts and call them out for what they are. But suddenly when someone posts a humorous response from Maher to this rampant misogyny in our culture and POTUS, that's when you say "shut it down." The usual double standard.
yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, what about her emails,
and Griffin, why, she insulted the nation, and worse,
and you snowflakes, what's wrong w deflating some yakking broad,
yada yada yada.
Lolz. The web is full of such. Please, not here so much.
Better things to do, any of us, I suggest, including Maurice, and even ol' useful Ted, even now looking anew for tired old sitcom clips pour épater la bourgeoisie, Lucy, Kingfish, et alia.
All In The Family... that was a different kettle of fish. Lots of serious commentary between the laughs on that show. I have to wonder if a show like that could even run today without crucifixion from our "progressive" left. I can hear the screams, and see the placards already. No iffy humor allowed... someone might have their precious delicate feelings hurt, requiring a "quiet room" and therapy for a few years. Boy, have we progressed, or what?
>> one entity has virtual control over it.
>> cannot evade responsibility for your actions, so I have a right to criticize.
>> comparing Obama to an ape
>> Lewis and I would not be treated equally
>> through intimidation, like boycotts,
>> I made you cry
Wow. I guess you have thinking after all.
The "battle between the sexes" will never end. Political humor is here to stay, too. But back to my point: "tolerance" and "understanding have become--- and not too seldom--- mollycoddling. Since the Enlightenment, but starting in the Renaissance, a huge, fundamental cultural-societal shift has taken place, and it is particularly in evidence in our "have it your way, just the way you like it, right now" consumerist-society: it is the tectonic shift away from objective knowledge and the recognition that we are all in this together, toward--- on the other hand--- an extreme over-emphasis on whatever the individual may want, regardless of conventional norms, regardless of The Obvious, regardless of ANYTHING. I want it the way I want it, because it pleases me, whether or not my predilection corresponds to reality.
A case in point is the recent news piece in which a British Columbia parent of a young child has decided NOT to identify as either male nor female, and wants her baby's sex to be determined by the baby, later on, when he or she(?) chooses something from the menu. (Guffaw.) ... Believe it or not, the B.C government granted the request, so the baby's sex is designated "U" for "unidentified."
Political correctness taken to an absurd extreme. Ted's original post was funny BECAUSE it is politically incorrect. Many of you know my Leftist political leanings. I don't mean (merely) the Democratic Party. But I refuse to be so utterly overly-aware of hurting someone's feelings that laughter is not allowed anymore. Some things cannot be just a free-for-all. Some laws and conventions exist because they JUST MAKE SENSE.
"You can't always get what you want." Deal with it. An ordered society cannot operate on the basis of whatever crazy notion some very weird people are feeling on any given day. Things are just getting to be cuckoo-nuts. Communication in the mail from State government in 14 languages? Get outa Dodge.
Oops. Yes, this is my longest post in quite a while...
http://www.purpleclover.com/entertainment/694-sexist-ads/
But context and time period are important when evaluating that show. I think part of what made the show socially acceptable when it originally aired in the 1950s is the understanding that Ralph never would or did punch Alice in the face. Yet that undertow of violence is actually there simultaneously--creating a comic tension--which was acceptable then because Alice often wins in their battle of wills.
Yet Old Joe says I completely disagree with that. Having lived in New York, I can tell you that Ralph Kramden is a beloved character who is seen as representative of the working man of that era in New York, so much so they erected a statue of him--not Gleason, note, but Kramden the character--right outside of the Port Authority Bus Terminal where many people arrive when they first come to New York:
The thing is in the U.S. a lot of men did then and continue to beat their wives today. The knowledge of that fact--and the social unacceptability of that fact--now makes lines like"One of these days, Alice, pow right in the kisser!" not quite so amusing to some people. It is the closeness of that reality--the real violence that occurs and is openly discussed--that I think makes it less funny than it once was. Yet being once removed from the violence can make something still funny--to me at least. For instance, I find Warner Brothers cartoons still funny because we know these are cartoon characters and when someone shoots Bugs in the face he just dusts himself off, gets up and walks away.
But tastes differ too, and I recognize people are of different ages on this board. Someone who grew up in the 1950s may still mentally be in the 1950s in a lot of ways and not understand why something they definitely don't find funny is now considered funny today or why something that was funny in the 1950s isn't considered funny now. What I reject is Crash's assertion that Ted's post is somehow universally funny. It ain't to me. Similarly, folks like Maurice and Ted probably don't find Maher funny. Different strokes.