White replacement theory?
Why are so many Fat and ugly people in commercials?
- Thread starter brass_trader
- Start date
Companies and overall society does not yet have a grip on how to properly deal with and handle social media. At the moment, those who scream the loudest get what they desire. How corporations bent so badly to the fringe even though those outliers hardly represent even 1% of the population is remarkable and worthy of further study. But fact remains that the large majority of the population desires to return to some sort of balance and sense of normalcy. The current perversion of society is not what most people crave for.
What's theoretical about it?
"It's a conspiracy theory that isn't happening, but it's good that it is, and it's just an uncontrollable force of nature that we're powerless to stop..."
So you actually believe large companies like Disney, Nike, Pepsi etc are seeing increased revenue not from attracting new customers with diverse representation in their advertising and media?
Stop and think about what you’re saying here. Look the number Moana did, or the latest Disney movie with all South American characters. Or Nike with Colin Kapernick blowing out merchandise sales.
Like I said. You may feel some kind of way but these companies are tracking revenue and they know. Diversity pays off. You just need to check your priors.
In a lot of ways advertising is here mentality. You better believe Steve Jobs made sure his “think different” campaign had diverse representation…
I wonder what you mean by balance and sense of normalcy. We have had companies poisoning people, using slave labor, unfair practices, giant financial crimes. Companies returning to normalcy doesn’t sound so great to me. Have you ever seen any of the big tobacco congressional hearings?
I guess the question is how do you like your companies lying and poisoning you or having some minorities and overweight people in their advertising?
I concur with you re corporations. I guess what I meant with "normalcy" is a fair representation of society in jobs. When a segment represents 3% of a population then the expectation should be to find about a similar representation of such segment in politics, jobs, movies... That's currently not the case. HR departments often times hire and select based on biases and fear to be called out by very vocal fringes with agendas that are opposed to equal opportunities.
Here in Canada I can speak with confidence about the fact that if you are of a certain gender and minority then your job application in certain industries in almost all cases results at the very least in interviews regardless of how qualified you are. If you don't belong to that group the interview opportunities drop to a small fraction of that.
Truth is that many in decision making positions nowadays do not pursue equal opportunities but equal outcomes. I strongly oppose such mindset.
Here in Canada I can speak with confidence about the fact that if you are of a certain gender and minority then your job application in certain industries in almost all cases results at the very least in interviews regardless of how qualified you are. If you don't belong to that group the interview opportunities drop to a small fraction of that.
Truth is that many in decision making positions nowadays do not pursue equal opportunities but equal outcomes. I strongly oppose such mindset.
I hate to continuously disagree with you but again I disagree. I would be very interested to see your data on job candidate selection unfairly favoring minorities. I bet you will find under representation, especially at higher salary positions. Same for women.
There’s an d book called the economics of discrimination. It goes through the market disadvantages of not reaching out to minority candidates because it leaves overly reliant on majority candidates which will ultimately lead you to hiring lesser qualified people because your pool is not big enough.
As to representation in media like movies and advertising. I get it seems like it makes sense if there is only 14% of certain people in the nation why have them in 33% of advertising. It’s because they are trying to expand customer base. Companies aren’t going to continue to make business decisions that don’t create or maintain revenue.
Now I do agree, equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome. But don’t mistaken mediocrity standards for one group with exceptional standards for another.
The statistics of some examples are the entire topic of this thread. How is it possible that 3% of a population represents 50% in ads unless those ads target a very specific segment. Even then there would be an outcry if certain ads only featured white males even if they target white males.
We can reasonably debate female and minority participation in higher paid jobs. The statistics often times contradict your claim. Look at news anchors across every TV channel. Even at fox news. Females and especially minorities are more than fairly represented. And those are very highly paid and lucrative jobs. I can name you dozens other industries where this is the case. We can discuss where women and minorities are under represented. In a few cases this might be the result of racism or gender bias. In many cases there are very valid reasons why certain genders or ethnicities are underrepresented.
What you are asking for is exactly what I and many oppose, which is postulating equal outcomes when that's not fairly justifiable. Or shall we reject all additional female nurses and kindergarten teachers until the male to female ratio is restored? Because many occupations showcase a large statistical female overpopulation.
We can reasonably debate female and minority participation in higher paid jobs. The statistics often times contradict your claim. Look at news anchors across every TV channel. Even at fox news. Females and especially minorities are more than fairly represented. And those are very highly paid and lucrative jobs. I can name you dozens other industries where this is the case. We can discuss where women and minorities are under represented. In a few cases this might be the result of racism or gender bias. In many cases there are very valid reasons why certain genders or ethnicities are underrepresented.
What you are asking for is exactly what I and many oppose, which is postulating equal outcomes when that's not fairly justifiable. Or shall we reject all additional female nurses and kindergarten teachers until the male to female ratio is restored? Because many occupations showcase a large statistical female overpopulation.
You're moving the goalposts here. I'm not talking about marketing products to different groups (presumably in Nigeria they use all African actors, and in China they use Chinese ones), nor Disney making a movie based on Mexican folklore, nor the mere appearance of minorities in reasonable numbers or in appropriate contexts. Nike has been heavily featuring black sports stars in its ads since the 1980s, and Morgan Freeman played the President way back in 1998.
What's new, in the last 5-10 years, is the industrial-scale practice of shoving nonwhites (which mainly means blacks) to front & center in media depictions in White nations, regardless of whether such depictions make sense. So you end up with blacks appearing in 30-50% of ads in markets where there are few blacks to be found, and TV series race-swapping Africans into 17th century London. This is done for propaganda purposes, or to comply with leftist religious scripture.
Don't believe me? Search for "happy white woman" on Google image search. A good third of the images feature blacks, often a black male who is clearly supposed to be the sexual partner. Do the same search on Qwant or even Bing and you get... pictures of white women, funny that.
Your claim that it's all "just a business decision" is easily disproven by the fact that diversity mandates exist in the first place. Hollywood, for instance, had to establish this elaborate quota system and diversity-commissariat bureaucracy precisely because commercial incentives weren't yielding the results demanded by Woke theology.