"Racist" (or something) Superbowl commercial

johnzaku

New member
Jun 16, 2009
527
0
0
Zayren said:
Lonewolfu571 said:
Here in Southern Louisiana I've formulated a racism test:

-If it was meant with hate or meant to hurt/bash someone and their race then it's racist.
-If you look at a normal situation and -needlessly- see race being involved when it really isn't, then THAT'S racism.

Commercial = Not Racist
Congresswoman = Racist
I support this.
As do I

As for the original post, no it was in no way racist, and I must say you made pretty much the same arguments I made at my school this week.

It's always nice to see similar viewpoints =]
 

Comrade_Beric

Jacobin
May 10, 2010
396
0
0
BoredDragon said:
Btw does anyone know if Congress has passed that bill for the relief for 9/11 first responders yet? If not, this congresswomen should be ashamed of herself.
Have you ever tried to buy a house? There's paperwork to sign and file, people to see, money has to change hands, meetings held, tax assessments, etc. The process takes time, and law making is surprisingly similar. Now, if you were buying a house, do you think it would be completely inappropriate for you to do anything else in that time? No, of course not. The process isn't going to go any faster by you trying to will the bank into processing the information faster, so it's not like you shouldn't go to work or see a movie during that time. Talking like no congressperson should ever do anything other than pass a bill you think is important is more than a little unfair. I appreciate that she's even in the building, many congresspeople don't even bother to show up for work more often than not. I'm not going to begrudge her using a minute when the chamber is fairly empty (you notice that the C-Span camera never ever sweeps across the chamber anymore so you don't know how many people the congressperson is actually talking to) to tell people what her opinion is about a commercial she saw as kind of offensive. When she starts trying to introduce a bill that does something about it (and thus actually slows down the process you so desperately want to go faster) then you'll have a perfectly valid reason to slam her.
 

marginal

New member
Mar 21, 2009
85
0
0
Lonewolfu571 said:
Here in Southern Louisiana I've formulated a racism test:

-If it was meant with hate or meant to hurt/bash someone and their race then it's racist.
-If you look at a normal situation and -needlessly- see race being involved when it really isn't, then THAT'S racism.

Commercial = Not Racist
Congresswoman = Racist
I've been saying the same thing for years. People often see racism when it isn't there (as well as other forms of prejudice) because they're looking for it. Anyone who isn't racist won't look at it that way because the thought never enters their mind.
 

BoredDragon

New member
Feb 9, 2011
1,097
0
0
Lord_Beric said:
BoredDragon said:
Btw does anyone know if Congress has passed that bill for the relief for 9/11 first responders yet? If not, this congresswomen should be ashamed of herself.
I'm not going to begrudge her using a minute when the chamber is fairly empty (you notice that the C-Span camera never ever sweeps across the chamber anymore so you don't know how many people the congressperson is actually talking to) to tell people what her opinion is about a commercial she saw as kind of offensive. When she starts trying to introduce a bill that does something about it then you'll have a perfectly valid reason to slam her.
That's a good point, I shall edit my comment and take that ending part off. btw the part that I have quoted here was the only thing you needed to say. I don't need a lecture on Political Science, I have my professors for that.
 

The Stonker

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,557
0
0
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this commercial.
Why?
Because I don't focus on stereotypes, if a black person is a douchebag, then I can't stand him, this applies to all races and sexualities.
 

Bender Rodriguez

New member
Sep 2, 2010
352
0
0
Sick of people shouting RACIST!!!!! towards everything...
So damn sensitive, slavery is long gone.
Get over it.

Not for racism, but getting tiered of people shouting Racism at everything, if anyones racist see what happens if a white guy walks up to a black gang in the street in a rough area.
Cracker isn't offensive to me, but in the book its just as racist as the N-word.
 

Bobbity

New member
Mar 17, 2010
1,659
0
0
I think that this is a bit of a joke really, and representative of the over-sensitivity so abundant in America today.
The ad obviously depicts the woman as a jealous girlfriend/wife, which has absolutely nothing to do with race. However, because this is America, and because Americans like their drama, race is instantly brought into this. If it had been a white girlfriend accidentally knocking out another white woman, absolutely nothing would have come of it. However, because this ad dares to use people of another race, it is immediately considered racist and reprehensible.
Race is going to be an issue as long as people keep seeing it, talking about it and even just bringing it up. The congresswoman, while her intentions may have been good, is just emphasizing a (in this particular case, non-existent) difference, and not doing her cause any good.

TL;DR: What. The. Fuck. Why bring race into this at all? Is the congresswoman trying to imply that there aren't jealous girlfriends who happen to be black? Is she trying to imply that while there might be, portraying them in a role no one would think twice to see a white person in is wrong?

/sigh
Only in America, right?
 

A_Libertarian

New member
Feb 11, 2011
8
0
0
It's "racist" because after she hits her with the can, they run away instead of helping her up. Also, it portrays the black lady as whacking her husband all the time (which most of them do, but whatever.)

Now, what REALLY would have been funny, is if it was a white lady pegging a black one in the head. Then the NAACP would be suing Pepsi.

Reverse racism is pathetic.
 

Frungy

New member
Feb 26, 2009
173
0
0
My test was simple, just mentally replace the races in my head and see if it is no longer funny (i.e. is this playing on a racial stereotype).

... it's not racist.

However I did the same test again changing the genders of the people and it is definitely sexist. If it was a man was kicking his wife, pushing her face into pie, stealing her food, throwing cans at her then feminists across the country would be up in arms about the advert promoting domestic violence, ... plus I'd like to point out that the guy doesn't look fat, and this advert is pushing an unrealistic and unhealthy body image for men!

Yeah, so it's sexits. Guys laugh it off, but we shouldn't because young boys everywhere are being exposed to the message that violence against men is socially acceptable.

We must take a STAND!! No violence by women against men... unless it involves fluffy handcuffs and the women in leather ;)
 

ScarBrow07

New member
Sep 26, 2008
173
0
0
So if a white woman throws a can at a white woman it is funny. But if a black woman throws a can at a white woman it's racist, is our generation not past this sort of crap. This has been blown out of proportion.
 

Slick Samurai

New member
Jul 3, 2009
337
0
0
Everyone who says this is racist is a racist themselves. Would it be ok if the couple were white, too? You think it's funny when white people fight each other, but the sacred cow is slaughtered when a white woman and a black woman fight?

Furthermore, you're taking away the right for black people to fight white people by imposing such an act as racist.

The nerve of some people.
 

automatron

New member
Apr 21, 2010
367
0
0
Heres a quick guide:

How the congress views racism:
Are there black people in the ad?
Are they doing anything that isn't absolutely perfect?
If yes: RACISM!
Seriously, not that big a deal.
The only racist part is when the guy says maximum taste, and that's barely.
And I HIGHLY doubt she has a sense of humour
 

Arafiro

New member
Mar 26, 2010
272
0
0
It didn't even matter what race anyone was in that ad.
Had nobody made a point about it in the first place, I'm sure it wouldn't have mattered to most people.
 

Magicman10893

New member
Aug 3, 2009
455
0
0
WorldCritic said:
Racist and offensive, are you kidding me?
Well this has finally confirmed to me that a large group of people on a gaming forum site are more intelligent than the majority. Way to go America.
That's because people who play games enough to go on the internet and talk to people on there instead of people met face to face is for nerds, and we all know nerds are the smartest and richest percentage of the population.



OT: The fact that the people calling it racist because it could possibly be construed as racist if you actually take race into account is in of itself, racist. The joke was that the wife/girlfriend was mad about her boyfriend/husband looking at other women. You could swap the actresses for the jogger and the wife/girlfriend and the joke would still be funny and make sense. However, if you actually take time to look at take the actors races into account it could potentially make it funnier. I mean, if you think that way (and being from an area that has more racists than intellectuals, it has unfortunately rubbed off on me) it could kind of make it funnier, thinking at the end that the guy was like, "Oh shit! White woman down! RUN!"
 

Unesh52

New member
May 27, 2010
1,375
0
0
ObsidianJones said:
To this, I only have to say one thing. The way I test if something is ok is by a reverse test. I.E. If I was in the restaurant, at their home, or for some reason in their bathroom and I saw the husband doing this to the wife, I have to ask myself if I'd be ok with that.

To even the soap one, I'd have to say no. Especially no to the throwing of the can. I think a lot of us would at least take the wife aside if we caught their husband doing this to them and ask if they are alright. If it looks fine on both sides, it's ok. If it's 'acceptable' on one side... no, it's not truly acceptable at all.
Father Time said:
I think you're both being reactionary. In the first place, I admit it wouldn't seem right if the sex roles were reversed, but there's a good reason for that. The trope the ad is playing on is the "wife obsessing over husband's health." I've seen this is numerous sitcoms, from That 70's show to that Tyler Perry sitcom. It's an exaggeration of the cultural dynamic by which the wife nags the husband about his health, and it's well established in pop culture and comedy. But it's not the same the other way around. "Man obsesses over his wife's health" is not a common trope, and wouldn't make sense in a satirical commercial. That's the reason you get a slight dissonant feeling when you think about the reverse situation.

Speaking of the abuse, the reason she "attacks" him instead of just taking it away is because that would be mundane and non-contextual. In other words, not clever, therefore not funny.

About the soda can. Notice a dramatic shift in tone right at the end of the commercial. This is purposeful. The irony is that well-meaning, ultimately harmless violence ended up severely wounding some random passerby. This is the crux of the tonal shift. We've moved from a caricature of "nagging wife" behavior to what would really happen if she were to act like that in real life. You can't take it out of context and say "this is clearly abusive." Yes, it is abusive. It's aware, and it's building the joke out your impression of the violence before. Where you (that is, where you should have) dismissed the cartoonish actions of the earlier scenes as camp and silly, suddenly the ad goes, "What if that was real life?"

(BTW, the other half of the joke that makes it work is simple physical humor. They use it on AFV all the time. Dude falls off his bike and it looks like it really hurts. Nut shots? They really hurt. And they're funny. Geddit?)
 

Penguinness

New member
May 25, 2010
984
0
0
The woman in congress mentioned that some "women of all colours" did not like this advert. Completely ignoring the existance of male opinions. Considering her extreme perception of the video, my extreme perception of her speech makes me think she's being sexist.