Quote from: SamunosukeOde on May 31, 2020, 13:39:09

Quote from: Valantar on May 25, 2020, 10:27:37
Credit where credit is due: most publications would have included a link to the video to maximize click-through and ad revenue, so NBC does definitely do the right thing by not doing so. Also, I can't say I'm even slightly surprised that Eastern and Central European marketing is massively sexist - it's not like Western Europe is even remotely free of that still, so why should they be any better? LG did the absolute minimum by pulling this down and apologizing, though I also hope whomever approved this to go through sees some professional consequences.

@LL: I would sincerely like to see where Marx wrote about objectification of women and upskirt photos. "Marxist" actually means something, you know. Though I suppose it's convenient to you to use it as a scary-sounding catch-all for people you disagree with and want to somehow smear? (Btw., if you want to smear someone with a scary-sounding "leftist" word, I would suggest Stalinist, Maoist or at the very least Leninist. Marx is a well-respected philosopher and political theorist, and while there are definite issues with his works, they bear little relation to the genocide and other atrocities carried out by people claiming to be followers of his works (as they generally were nothing of the sort).)

@MxViking: You're absolutely right - creepyness is age agnostic, and there are heaps of creepy men of all ages out there. A decent selection of creepy women too, if you look for it, though far fewer as they're socialized into that kind of behavior much less than men are.

@kony: Objectification of another person on the basis of their sex and body is indeed sexism, especially (but not limited to) if it is against their will. The general attitude that other people (especially if limited to a specific group) are there for your visual pleasure just by virtue of being visible to you is deeply problematic and reflects an attitude saying that you have a right to lay claim to other people's bodies for your own wants. That is pretty disgusting, frankly. You might want to revise your understanding of "sexism" slightly, as you seem not to have learnt anything for the past few decades. And yes, ogling strangers on the street is also very clearly sexist behavior. And, btw, how is an ad promoting a phone through "an inappropriate old guy making a legs/feet photos of a young lady" not deeply problematic to you? Even your own wording makes it clear that this is not acceptable behavior in any way.

@Williams: Isn't "Major tech company royally screws up marketing campaign" tech news? Sure, it's not a product announcement, but announcement coverage is generally nothing more than advertising masquerading as news content to satisfy our tech fetshism. This actually shows something of how technology and the companies producing said technology are part of the world we live in. That definitely represents interesting tech news to me.

It's quite disturbing that just because Marx did not write about objectification of women and upskirt photos so any movement which abides by his philosophy should not be termed Marxist. Let me guess, that is "your truth" and not the truth.

That would be a valid criticism, had I actually been talking about a(ny) movement that abides by Marxist philosophy or ideals. The burden of evidence there is still firmly on either LL or you: please demonstrate how the news post in question in any way expresses Marxist ideology or philosophy. I'll be waiting.

Quote from: SamunosukeOde on May 31, 2020, 13:39:09Regarding the scary sounding words, a quick google of Marxism throws up a link to Encyclopaedia Britannica where *gasp* "Then there is Soviet Marxism as worked out by Vladimir Ilich Lenin and modified by Joseph Stalin, which under the name of Marxism-Leninism (see Leninism) became the doctrine of the communist parties set up after the Russian Revolution (1917). Offshoots of this included Marxism as interpreted by the anti-Stalinist Leon Trotsky and his followers, Mao Zedong's Chinese variant of Marxism-Leninism, and various Marxisms in the developing world." so @LL may not have completed it but he was still right as they are regarded as subsets of the Marxist ideology.

So you acknowledge my base criticism of LL above that "Marxist" actually means something, then? Great. Of course it should then be further pointed out - which really ought to be clear from your own research - that neither Soviet Marxism (in either the Leninist or Stalinist versions, which are by the way dramatically different), Trotskyist Marxism, Maoism or any other offshoot are "Marxism". That word alone is either a) the philosophical, ideological and other theoretical works of Marx (and Engels), or b) an umbrella term for that and all of its various offshoots or developments. In other words, if you for example mean Marxist-Leninism specifically, you can't say "Marxism", as those two terms don't mean the same thing. Beyond that, I'm still waiting on any kind of argument as to how the article expresses any Marxist ideology.

Quote from: SamunosukeOde on May 31, 2020, 13:39:09Sexism is the prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Objectification is the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object. Objectification is not the same as sexism. While it is possible for the 2 to be linked, they are not coupled.

Oh dear. You should really read up on some basic gender studies material. Objectification in specific cases is not the same as sexism; the two words are not identical. That much is true. However, objectification as seen in most (Western, but not limited to this) societies is an expression of broadly held discriminatory attitudes towards women, particularly those that value women mostly based on their adherence to dominant beauty norms and those who say that men have a right to use other people for their pleasure. The act of treating another person as an object for your viewing pleasure, especially but not limited to without their consent and/or knowledge, is thus sexist as it by enacts and reinforces said sexist norms. The use of such acts as "humor" with the objectifier as the clear protagonist just makes it doubly so, as the woman then not only is robbed of agency and control over her own body in the situation, but is also robbed of agency in how she is portrayed, while the objectification is clearly portrayed as a victory for the man.

Quote from: SamunosukeOde on May 31, 2020, 13:39:09"The general attitude that other people (especially if limited to a specific group) are there for your visual pleasure just by virtue of being visible to you is deeply problematic and reflects an attitude saying that you have a right to lay claim to other people's bodies for your own wants. That is pretty disgusting, frankly. You might want to revise your understanding of "sexism" slightly, as you seem not to have learnt anything for the past few decades. And yes, ogling strangers on the street is also very clearly sexist behavior." I find this line of thought mind-numbingly disturbing. Living creatures are always inclined to comfort and pleasure. I am yet to find any normal person (hopefully, including you) that prefers pain to pleasure, discomfort to comfort or ugly to beauty (subjective in their eyes anyway). Personally, I don't stare at others based on my upbringing but men (especially attractive men) also get stared at by women a lot so it is not peculiar to men alone. No one is a 100% clean so people should be free to view anyone as they choose but that should only reside in their mind and not reflect in the way they treat or act on others. @kony was referring to the fact that while the ad is inappropriate by objectifying women, it is not sexist as claimed. Hard to believe that words have meaning but there it is.

That is an extremely oversimplified argument, and one that seems to presuppose the complete absence of both free will or judgement (especially on the part of men, it would seem) as well as a seeming view that the absence of pleasure is by default pain, which is obviously wrong.

Point one: if treating other people badly - such as exemplified by this video - gives you pleasure and does not cause you pain, you ought to be seeking out a therapist.

Point two: I never said that men don't get stared at, but this is a classic false equivalency. While some objectification of men does happen, the amount is infinitesimal compared to objectification of women.

Point three: If you, due to your upbringing, don't stare at people (and, I must then assume, don't take upskirt pictures of strangers either), I must assume by your reasoning that not doing so does not bring you pain or discomfort. Why, then, do you assume that it does so for others?

Point four: Assuming that not being allowed to objectify others does indeed cause pain, how do you account for the fact that this line of reasoning you are presenting is actively promoting this "pain" of not being allowed to ogle strangers as more severe than the pain of someone being sexually harassed or similarly exposed to sexism? Unless you can show otherwise, this demonstrates that your very argument is biased firmly towards men and against women; you are saying that the pain of a man is worth much more than the pain of a woman.

As for the rest of that pap, see above.

Quote from: SamunosukeOde on May 31, 2020, 13:39:09The media's newfound love of trying to appeal to SJWs by pigeonholing any act that does not follow the narrow mindset of the left is tiresome and detracts from the actual issue at hand. (Case in point, arguing semantics now instead of the content of the ad itself)

Hm, isn't it you here who turned this into a semantic argument (if it can at all be said to be one)? I was very much discussing the contents of the video and the responses to it of others above here. The solution here seems simple: stop whining about bogeymen taking over the media and start actually paying attention to the welfare of the people around you. Some empathy and interest in others would go a long way.

Quote from: Valantar on May 25, 2020, 10:27:37
Credit where credit is due: most publications would have included a link to the video to maximize click-through and ad revenue, so NBC does definitely do the right thing by not doing so. Also, I can't say I'm even slightly surprised that Eastern and Central European marketing is massively sexist - it's not like Western Europe is even remotely free of that still, so why should they be any better? LG did the absolute minimum by pulling this down and apologizing, though I also hope whomever approved this to go through sees some professional consequences.

@LL: I would sincerely like to see where Marx wrote about objectification of women and upskirt photos. "Marxist" actually means something, you know. Though I suppose it's convenient to you to use it as a scary-sounding catch-all for people you disagree with and want to somehow smear? (Btw., if you want to smear someone with a scary-sounding "leftist" word, I would suggest Stalinist, Maoist or at the very least Leninist. Marx is a well-respected philosopher and political theorist, and while there are definite issues with his works, they bear little relation to the genocide and other atrocities carried out by people claiming to be followers of his works (as they generally were nothing of the sort).)

@MxViking: You're absolutely right - creepyness is age agnostic, and there are heaps of creepy men of all ages out there. A decent selection of creepy women too, if you look for it, though far fewer as they're socialized into that kind of behavior much less than men are.

@kony: Objectification of another person on the basis of their sex and body is indeed sexism, especially (but not limited to) if it is against their will. The general attitude that other people (especially if limited to a specific group) are there for your visual pleasure just by virtue of being visible to you is deeply problematic and reflects an attitude saying that you have a right to lay claim to other people's bodies for your own wants. That is pretty disgusting, frankly. You might want to revise your understanding of "sexism" slightly, as you seem not to have learnt anything for the past few decades. And yes, ogling strangers on the street is also very clearly sexist behavior. And, btw, how is an ad promoting a phone through "an inappropriate old guy making a legs/feet photos of a young lady" not deeply problematic to you? Even your own wording makes it clear that this is not acceptable behavior in any way.

@Williams: Isn't "Major tech company royally screws up marketing campaign" tech news? Sure, it's not a product announcement, but announcement coverage is generally nothing more than advertising masquerading as news content to satisfy our tech fetshism. This actually shows something of how technology and the companies producing said technology are part of the world we live in. That definitely represents interesting tech news to me.

It's quite disturbing that just because Marx did not write about objectification of women and upskirt photos so any movement which abides by his philosophy should not be termed Marxist. Let me guess, that is "your truth" and not the truth.

Regarding the scary sounding words, a quick google of Marxism throws up a link to Encyclopaedia Britannica where *gasp* "Then there is Soviet Marxism as worked out by Vladimir Ilich Lenin and modified by Joseph Stalin, which under the name of Marxism-Leninism (see Leninism) became the doctrine of the communist parties set up after the Russian Revolution (1917). Offshoots of this included Marxism as interpreted by the anti-Stalinist Leon Trotsky and his followers, Mao Zedong's Chinese variant of Marxism-Leninism, and various Marxisms in the developing world." so @LL may not have completed it but he was still right as they are regarded as subsets of the Marxist ideology.

Sexism is the prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Objectification is the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object. Objectification is not the same as sexism. While it is possible for the 2 to be linked, they are not coupled.

"The general attitude that other people (especially if limited to a specific group) are there for your visual pleasure just by virtue of being visible to you is deeply problematic and reflects an attitude saying that you have a right to lay claim to other people's bodies for your own wants. That is pretty disgusting, frankly. You might want to revise your understanding of "sexism" slightly, as you seem not to have learnt anything for the past few decades. And yes, ogling strangers on the street is also very clearly sexist behavior." I find this line of thought mind-numbingly disturbing. Living creatures are always inclined to comfort and pleasure. I am yet to find any normal person (hopefully, including you) that prefers pain to pleasure, discomfort to comfort or ugly to beauty (subjective in their eyes anyway). Personally, I don't stare at others based on my upbringing but men (especially attractive men) also get stared at by women a lot so it is not peculiar to men alone. No one is a 100% clean so people should be free to view anyone as they choose but that should only reside in their mind and not reflect in the way they treat or act on others. @kony was referring to the fact that while the ad is inappropriate by objectifying women, it is not sexist as claimed. Hard to believe that words have meaning but there it is.

The media's newfound love of trying to appeal to SJWs by pigeonholing any act that does not follow the narrow mindset of the left is tiresome and detracts from the actual issue at hand. (Case in point, arguing semantics now instead of the content of the ad itself)

Quote from: Valantar on May 25, 2020, 10:27:37
Credit where credit is due: most publications would have included a link to the video to maximize click-through and ad revenue, so NBC does definitely do the right thing by not doing so. Also, I can't say I'm even slightly surprised that Eastern and Central European marketing is massively sexist - it's not like Western Europe is even remotely free of that still, so why should they be any better? LG did the absolute minimum by pulling this down and apologizing, though I also hope whomever approved this to go through sees some professional consequences.

@LL: I would sincerely like to see where Marx wrote about objectification of women and upskirt photos. "Marxist" actually means something, you know. Though I suppose it's convenient to you to use it as a scary-sounding catch-all for people you disagree with and want to somehow smear? (Btw., if you want to smear someone with a scary-sounding "leftist" word, I would suggest Stalinist, Maoist or at the very least Leninist. Marx is a well-respected philosopher and political theorist, and while there are definite issues with his works, they bear little relation to the genocide and other atrocities carried out by people claiming to be followers of his works (as they generally were nothing of the sort).)

@MxViking: You're absolutely right - creepyness is age agnostic, and there are heaps of creepy men of all ages out there. A decent selection of creepy women too, if you look for it, though far fewer as they're socialized into that kind of behavior much less than men are.

@kony: Objectification of another person on the basis of their sex and body is indeed sexism, especially (but not limited to) if it is against their will. The general attitude that other people (especially if limited to a specific group) are there for your visual pleasure just by virtue of being visible to you is deeply problematic and reflects an attitude saying that you have a right to lay claim to other people's bodies for your own wants. That is pretty disgusting, frankly. You might want to revise your understanding of "sexism" slightly, as you seem not to have learnt anything for the past few decades. And yes, ogling strangers on the street is also very clearly sexist behavior. And, btw, how is an ad promoting a phone through "an inappropriate old guy making a legs/feet photos of a young lady" not deeply problematic to you? Even your own wording makes it clear that this is not acceptable behavior in any way.

@Williams: Isn't "Major tech company royally screws up marketing campaign" tech news? Sure, it's not a product announcement, but announcement coverage is generally nothing more than advertising masquerading as news content to satisfy our tech fetshism. This actually shows something of how technology and the companies producing said technology are part of the world we live in. That definitely represents interesting tech news to me.

Well said.

Credit where credit is due: most publications would have included a link to the video to maximize click-through and ad revenue, so NBC does definitely do the right thing by not doing so. Also, I can't say I'm even slightly surprised that Eastern and Central European marketing is massively sexist - it's not like Western Europe is even remotely free of that still, so why should they be any better? LG did the absolute minimum by pulling this down and apologizing, though I also hope whomever approved this to go through sees some professional consequences.

@LL: I would sincerely like to see where Marx wrote about objectification of women and upskirt photos. "Marxist" actually means something, you know. Though I suppose it's convenient to you to use it as a scary-sounding catch-all for people you disagree with and want to somehow smear? (Btw., if you want to smear someone with a scary-sounding "leftist" word, I would suggest Stalinist, Maoist or at the very least Leninist. Marx is a well-respected philosopher and political theorist, and while there are definite issues with his works, they bear little relation to the genocide and other atrocities carried out by people claiming to be followers of his works (as they generally were nothing of the sort).)

@MxViking: You're absolutely right - creepyness is age agnostic, and there are heaps of creepy men of all ages out there. A decent selection of creepy women too, if you look for it, though far fewer as they're socialized into that kind of behavior much less than men are.

@kony: Objectification of another person on the basis of their sex and body is indeed sexism, especially (but not limited to) if it is against their will. The general attitude that other people (especially if limited to a specific group) are there for your visual pleasure just by virtue of being visible to you is deeply problematic and reflects an attitude saying that you have a right to lay claim to other people's bodies for your own wants. That is pretty disgusting, frankly. You might want to revise your understanding of "sexism" slightly, as you seem not to have learnt anything for the past few decades. And yes, ogling strangers on the street is also very clearly sexist behavior. And, btw, how is an ad promoting a phone through "an inappropriate old guy making a legs/feet photos of a young lady" not deeply problematic to you? Even your own wording makes it clear that this is not acceptable behavior in any way.

@Williams: Isn't "Major tech company royally screws up marketing campaign" tech news? Sure, it's not a product announcement, but announcement coverage is generally nothing more than advertising masquerading as news content to satisfy our tech fetshism. This actually shows something of how technology and the companies producing said technology are part of the world we live in. That definitely represents interesting tech news to me.

Typical Marxist crap we can expect from journalists.

I am sure the author don't post anything about middle age white male fathers being shown as inept idiots in many adverts.Just because it follows the narrative normalized isn't it?

If we're going to get all PC, then what's up with the Ageism? 'creepy old man'?

What's the point of being a 'responsible publication' by adding fuel to the fire? Not linking the video just means people will find it through other ways ("Streisand effect").

If you didn't want to bring attention to it, don't post the news. I agree with others that people don't come here for social gossip.

Does notebookcheck even know what sexist means? Making a photo of a woman's legs isn't sexist. It's inappropriate, sure, but sexist? Do you also avoid telling your girls that they "look nice" or "have pretty hairstyle" because that's sexist to you? Do you turn your head away when you see a pretty girl on a street because looking at her is "sexist"?

If anybody else here wonders, the ad itself is nothing interesting. It just has an inappropriate old guy making a legs/feet photos of a young lady and... that's it.

What is this nonsense?
I'm here for tech news, not for social gossip and indian tech market column.
Stop littering the site.