Comments
-
@HiroAntagonist, that fact that nobody is coming forward to claim credit and the fact that without such context, somebody essentially just wasted a shlt ton of money on a billboard to advertise what can be objectively considered either complete nonsense or a self evident fact that anyone would know, is pretty implicit proof of the owner's intent. Nobody's stupid enough to waste that much money unless they're trying to put forward some kind of message.
-
@Donald Drumpf, And maybe that message is what you yourself said was possible from an objective point of view. You don't know. I don't know. Maybe that was the point of their statement. Maybe it's some sort of New Age word art. Doesn't matter. Saying "this thing I have no personal knowledge of and only just read on the internet clearly means X" is just not a good angle to take, simply because you're basing it on assumption rather than fact.
-
@Donald Drumpf, I can think of a lot of people on the internet that would argue good trolling is itself an art. But now you're defining what's art, again from your perspective. That's the only point I'm trying to make: just because it can be taken multiple ways does not mean your way is definitive, because you have no hand in its creation. If da Vinci came up to you and explained the meaning behind one of his works, you could not simply say "You're wrong and I'm right."
-
@Hamilton Porter, What I think doesn't really matter. The message isn't that objectionable to me, but I see why people wouldn't like it, and I understand why it would cause certain kinds of people to get their undies in a bunch. But as far as I know, it only means exactly what it says. There's no context to determine tone, no reasoning given, nothing to indicate it might be a quote. So it's hard to make a solid determination independent of the author(s).
-
@Corpsman , Sort of. That particular statement doesn't have any way it can be taken other than bad. But you're right, essentially. And then I as a viewer could have my view of "no, you're racist and horrible and genocidal based on my opinion." My opinion is still valid. But because I didn't make it, I cannot say "this was clearly intended to be XYZ"
-
@TheHippie52, No, I meant something *for* trans rights or gay marriage. Something that is the opposite of this, basically, given in the same sort of neutral tone but can be taken pro and con. I don't keep up with the hashtags but "#loveislove" or something. That would make a lot of people mad, the opposite kinds of people as this. Does that make it trolling? Because suddenly it agrees perfectly with your point of view while also angering people that don't share your view. What would you call it?
-
@HiroAntagonist, your hypothetical is flawed, there are laws and unfair regulations against trans and gay marriage. There's no law or injustice with a woman providing for a man. This billboard suggests traditional gender rolls are the way it should be. If you take the time and money to creat this billboard you either firmly believe that and want to spread that opinion (which is naive to believe that's the only way it should be) or your doing it to trigger feminists (trolling) It's just another naive fool getting everyone worked up. Subconscious trolling
-
@HiroAntagonist, The problem is that societies fundamentally operate on various things being "widely known." "Society" knows that men providing for women is a known "thing," it's not something someone pulled out of their aśs just for this billboard. So, when you say something like this, without explicitly stating that it should be taken otherwise, it is *implied* to be taken as a statement in favor of traditional gender roles. Consequently, saying that there's not necessarily anything wrong with this is not only naive, but kind of excusing the perpetrators of the blame. It can reasonably be assumed they knew exactly how this would be taken, because this trope is common knowledge.
-
@The Chemist, Side note to the above comment: this is why people consider it bullshìt when a politician says "oh I didn't mean it *THAT* way.." They're just covering their áss and talking their way out of it, but we all basically know they knew what they were saying. (Ex: almost anytime trump has a controversy, and kellyanne conway bullshíts her way out of every motherfücking conversation.)
-
@TheHippie52, You answer my question without meaning to, in as roundabout a way as possible. My point is, if a person agrees with the statement, it's wonderful and/or brave and/or laudable. If a person disagrees with the statement, it's hateful and/or trolling and/or offensive. That's it, it's based entirely on subjective perception, not objective fact.
-
@abossassbitch, Like Paul can reasonably assume that since Karen wears such right skirts and bends over a lot and laughs at his jokes and touches his shoulder it's totally fine to smack her backside when she walks by? An extreme example for a point that's separate from what I was originally trying to say, yes, but still. I'm honestly not convinced that there wasn't a fair bit of ignorance. Considering the number of ridiculous religious or pro-life billboards I drive by in my own state that have never been posted on the internet (widely, at least) the person(s) maybe legitimately not have thought it would garner this attention.
-
@Donald Drumpf, Or perhaps it is a psychological test. It only means what you interpret it as. To some it may be sexist. To some it may not. I thought of it like this at first, perhaps the first part is a message to all those useless fathers that abandon and don't take care of their kids. And the second part is a message to all those useless mothers that try to bash and take advantage of good fathers that do provide for their kids. Perspective is everything. For example, I find it quite funny when parents complain about certain jokes in kids movies being dirty. Truth is that it is only dirty if you have a smutty mind and see it that way. Young kids usually don't see those jokes like that. For example, go back and watch some of your favorite kids movies when you become an adult and see what jokes you never noticed before.
-
@HiroAntagonist, But that's not just an extreme example, it's a bad/ unrelated one. My point was that these things are common knowledge. Your example would assume that it's common knowledge that it's ok to sexually touch someone just because of what they wear and such. On the contrary, it's pretty well known at this point by people who aren't assholes that clear consent is necessary, which your example does not have. Similarly, people who aren't assholes know that statement is sexist and problematic, though you could argue I guess that there are subsets of the population who are sexist and think that's fine? But those aren't the majority.
Provide for yourself, provide for your loved ones. Give to those who appreciate and appreciate those who give.