Is this ad going to be divisive? Yes, just like the vote Australian gay marriage vote was divisive.
Apple tends to be on the socially liberal side of the bandwagon, so hey, it happens. And they've got to accept that some may not like that. That's their decision, and shareholders can act accordingly.
Nevertheless, take a look at the posts here spouting "lifestyle choice" and "personal preference" and wonder to yourself why people keep killing themselves when they realise they're gay and they can't help that. Even on an Apple-focused site we can't be civil and respectful to others just because some find the acts in an ad personally distasteful...
Just a reminder: you don't have to like anything - but you don't get to force other people what they should and shouldn't like either.
So to the thinly veiled bigots, try to keep a historical point of view in your mind - since these laws were changed for a reason. There is no silent majority, there is no hidden agenda. The overwhelming majority of people support marriage equality, you don't have to like that - but it's the reality. An anecdotal survey of your circle of friends is not a representation of society as a whole. Society approves of these messages.
To the people who think they should grow up, you're right, they should. But smugness and equality don't go hand in hand, find the common good between you both and work from there, today you might disagree on this point, and tomorrow you may agree on another - that's life, work with it.
No but putting out ads that leave 50% of people triggered is not a good thing for Apple.
At best it's 38% triggered, and probably substantially less than that, since even the front person for the "No" campaign went to his sister's wedding (to another woman, just to be clear). Most people who responded against gay marriage in the survey (not a vote, a survey) probably won't have PTSD flashbacks to a time they were forced to participate in a gay wedding, anyway. The word "triggered" gets bandied about a lot by people, usually trying to devalue it, when it means a specific thing relating to Post Traumatic Stress, and doesn't just mean seeing something you don't want to see.
Anyway, next there'll be complaints about the Apple Employees for Sexual Freedom float in the parade.
(Note: I don't know if there's actually an "Apple Employees for Sexual Freedom" float in the Mardi Gras this year. I kind of hope there is, just because it will annoy a certain type of person, and I also think it's something Apple would support.)
Wouldn't it be nice if they could just show humans who are happy that they've found love, without the details being such a big deal?
The original movie, 24 years old, had two main gay caracters and was a surprise worldwide hit.
Also, what details, some people are "triggered" (abuse of the term) by just two men holding hands so for them, anything short of men having their face in a decolletage is too "gay".
Is this ad going to be divisive? Yes, just like the vote Australian gay marriage vote was divisive.
Apple tends to be on the socially liberal side of the bandwagon, so hey, it happens. And they've got to accept that some may not like that. That's their decision, and shareholders can act accordingly.
Nevertheless, take a look at the posts here spouting "lifestyle choice" and "personal preference" and wonder to yourself why people keep killing themselves when they realise they're gay and they can't help that. Even on an Apple-focused site we can't be civil and respectful to others just because some find the acts in an ad personally distasteful...
Thanks guys.
- From a married gay Australian guy.
Abolishing slavery also was divisive, and for some turds, it still is. Being divisive isn't really a gauge of anything.
The status quo, or some past where X was on top always has defenders they have or do profit from it. They also somehow believe everything is a zero sum game. They lose something if someone else gains.
Any hint of rising the overall state of the nation and working for the common good has fallen by the wayside in the modern GOP; it's every person for himself, everyone will soon be a millionaire and will just sweep the bones of the inadequate fallen by the wayside.
Often populists play that zero sum gain to cleave away groups of people by pitting one interest against the other despite the fact they are much closer in reality. And sadly, it works, people will support anything if they appeal to their xenophobia, sexism, homophobia despite the same person promising things screwing them 10 different ways on other issues.
Poor whites have much more in common with poor blacks yet they have been cleaved away from democrats by blaming POC for their plight when they in fact are getting fleeced the same.
LBJ said that as long as the GOP promised they'd make the POC suffer more than them, they'd be OK with them being fleeced. Considering he was talking about this while the southern strategy had no emerged yet (talking about the Goldwater faction of the GOP), that has turned amazingly prescient.
Finally, Forcing people live by their so called "morality" wouldn't be so funny if people like that hadn't voted and still supported mr orange cesspool of immorality himself. They are taken down to people while mired in shameful sludge. That's something.
No, but tinkering with the foundations of society does, a bit.
anome said: The word "triggered" gets bandied about a lot by people...
No doubt. 'Triggered' now basically means, 'I don't like your view and I'm going to see if I can use my discomfort with it to silence you.'
All-Purpose Guru said: If a large quantity of people objected to these views I find it hard to believe they'd still be the largest and most successful company on the planet.
A large quantity of people do disagree, but they are too scared to lose their jobs, be harmed, etc. to speak up. I think they should get a bit more back-bone, but the reality is that none of these societal moves were based on science or political populism. They were ram-rodded into place by activists, with any dissenters facing harsh retribution.
You must be tolerant and respectful of private life choices that differ from your own, and act in a non-discriminatory way.
It's good to be tolerant and respectful (if there is true tolerance, as the next post points out), but it's quite one thing tolerating a life-style choice, and quite another when the law is changed for the State to be promoting particular life-style choices. That's where the big fuss over all of this is. Anyone who doesn't understand why the fuss, simply hasn't spent 5 minutes critically thinking about this matter.
EsquireCats said: So to the thinly veiled bigots, try to keep a historical point of view in your mind - since these laws were changed for a reason. ... The overwhelming majority of people support marriage equality...
Could you state the reason for the law change then, and define 'marriage equality' for me? AFAIK, the rest of the letters in the LGBT+++ acronym still aren't represented. First, you have to define what the thing actually is that you're fighting for equality over. THAT is where the debate should be (but it was skipped via activism). I'm all for discussion, debate, adjusting laws when necessary, equality, etc... but there never really a good discussion and debate on this one. It was forced on society.
Is this ad going to be divisive? Yes, just like the vote Australian gay marriage vote was divisive.
Apple tends to be on the socially liberal side of the bandwagon, so hey, it happens. And they've got to accept that some may not like that. That's their decision, and shareholders can act accordingly.
Nevertheless, take a look at the posts here spouting "lifestyle choice" and "personal preference" and wonder to yourself why people keep killing themselves when they realise they're gay and they can't help that. Even on an Apple-focused site we can't be civil and respectful to others just because some find the acts in an ad personally distasteful...
Thanks guys.
- From a married gay Australian guy.
Abolishing slavery also was divisive, and for some turds, it still is. Being divisive isn't really a gauge of anything. ... Forcing people live by their so called "morality" wouldn't be so funny if people like that hadn't voted and still supported mr orange cesspool of immorality himself. They are taken down to people while mired in shameful sludge. That's something.
There is zero parallel there, so why bring that into the discussion? And, while I might agree on the cesspool or immorality, have you considered that maybe some realized the even bigger cesspool we were facing as the alternative? I know a lot of people who didn't vote for Trump (including me) as they couldn't stand either, and an awful lot of people who voted for him, holding their nose. Trump won to avoid the alternative (even w/o a huge segment of the conservative vote). So, that argument doesn't really fly.
But, morality aside, this debate can also be argued based on science and good-ol common sense. It just never has been.
But, morality aside, this debate can also be argued based on science and good-ol common sense. It just never has been.
Our recent Postal Plebiscite was indeed a chance for those against the change to our laws to put forward their science based and good-old common sense positions. They choose not to. Instead preferring divisions, derision and outright insults based on their on-going bias. Not to mention various claims of being the victimized when ever anyone pointed out they weren't presenting any credible or relevant argument. If those people who claim "Morality" aren't going to put their science and good-old common sense positions when given such a public platform, then maybe it just doesn't exist.
The side arguing for the change did put forward many good-old common sense arguments around people just being people and that is one of the reasons why the vote was in favour.
No but putting out ads that leave 50% of people triggered is not a good thing for Apple.
These adverts are for Australia and last October the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey returned 61.6% "Yes" responses and 38.4% "No" responses, with 0.3% informal. The total turnout was 12.7 M or 79.5%. Several hours after the results of the survey were released, Senator Dean Smith introduced the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 into the Australian Senate. The bill passed the Senate by 43 votes to 12 on 29 November 2017, The bill passed the House of Representatives without amendment on 7 December 2017 and it received royal assent from the Governor General on 8 December 2017 and came into effect the following day.
One of the leading opponents to gay marriage was staunchly Catholic, ex-prime minister Tony Abbot, but after the Act was passed he said: “I certainly don’t pretend to be an overnight convert to supporting same sex marriage, but I am looking forward to attending the marriage of my sister Christine to her partner, Virginia.” (Which he did, and you can see the photo's online.) For 99% of Australians - supporters and opponents - this is a done deal and we're already back to the important things, like sport and parties.
On the subject of parties, the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is on this Saturday, it is one of the most fun events in a city that has a full calendar of great events, year round, so this is actually very clever, on the ball marketing.
No, but tinkering with the foundations of society does, a bit.
anome said: The word "triggered" gets bandied about a lot by people...
No doubt. 'Triggered' now basically means, 'I don't like your view and I'm going to see if I can use my discomfort with it to silence you.'
All-Purpose Guru said: If a large quantity of people objected to these views I find it hard to believe they'd still be the largest and most successful company on the planet.
A large quantity of people do disagree, but they are too scared to lose their jobs, be harmed, etc. to speak up. I think they should get a bit more back-bone, but the reality is that none of these societal moves were based on science or political populism. They were ram-rodded into place by activists, with any dissenters facing harsh retribution.
You must be tolerant and respectful of private life choices that differ from your own, and act in a non-discriminatory way.
It's good to be tolerant and respectful (if there is true tolerance, as the next post points out), but it's quite one thing tolerating a life-style choice, and quite another when the law is changed for the State to be promoting particular life-style choices. That's where the big fuss over all of this is. Anyone who doesn't understand why the fuss, simply hasn't spent 5 minutes critically thinking about this matter.
EsquireCats said: So to the thinly veiled bigots, try to keep a historical point of view in your mind - since these laws were changed for a reason. ... The overwhelming majority of people support marriage equality...
Could you state the reason for the law change then, and define 'marriage equality' for me? AFAIK, the rest of the letters in the LGBT+++ acronym still aren't represented. First, you have to define what the thing actually is that you're fighting for equality over. THAT is where the debate should be (but it was skipped via activism). I'm all for discussion, debate, adjusting laws when necessary, equality, etc... but there never really a good discussion and debate on this one. It was forced on society.
Is this ad going to be divisive? Yes, just like the vote Australian gay marriage vote was divisive.
Apple tends to be on the socially liberal side of the bandwagon, so hey, it happens. And they've got to accept that some may not like that. That's their decision, and shareholders can act accordingly.
Nevertheless, take a look at the posts here spouting "lifestyle choice" and "personal preference" and wonder to yourself why people keep killing themselves when they realise they're gay and they can't help that. Even on an Apple-focused site we can't be civil and respectful to others just because some find the acts in an ad personally distasteful...
Thanks guys.
- From a married gay Australian guy.
Abolishing slavery also was divisive, and for some turds, it still is. Being divisive isn't really a gauge of anything. ... Forcing people live by their so called "morality" wouldn't be so funny if people like that hadn't voted and still supported mr orange cesspool of immorality himself. They are taken down to people while mired in shameful sludge. That's something.
There is zero parallel there, so why bring that into the discussion? And, while I might agree on the cesspool or immorality, have you considered that maybe some realized the even bigger cesspool we were facing as the alternative? I know a lot of people who didn't vote for Trump (including me) as they couldn't stand either, and an awful lot of people who voted for him, holding their nose. Trump won to avoid the alternative (even w/o a huge segment of the conservative vote). So, that argument doesn't really fly.
But, morality aside, this debate can also be argued based on science and good-ol common sense. It just never has been.
The false equivalence you just did means you are fucking intellectually dishonest and that whole argument about science is a load of crap in your mouth.
You actually don't believe in actual science or common sense, cause factually you are basing none of your actual judgment in reality. You believe in fake news, fake reality, your judgment call and "feels". The actual opposite of everything you claim.
For a person of color, sexual minority, gender equality, someone who actually cares about the environment, the poor, actual real science, the government as an instrument of good in society, etc They were in no way similar and the actual results up to now proves each of these things conclusively; for people I know, consequences are real and dire.
That fucking turd trump had 3500 litigation in which he settles making everyone lose their shirt, had exploited his workers, he'd been a litigated racists with racist parents since the 1970s, his mentor and many in his entourage had mob ties, he hid his financial position in thousands of shell corporations, he used a charity as a slush fund, defrauded thousands of students, he'd filed 6 bankruptcies, had hundreds of business failures, even before elected had thousands of demonstrable lies about just about everything, he was an extreme misogynist on tape for decades, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention the whole Russian thing he'd been lying about even before the election... "no ties".. Despite his god damn son saying the opposite just a few years earlier.
I've been following that turd's "accomplishment" since the he emerged onto the scene in the early 1980s and I've known about Clinton since the late 1980s.
So, WTF is the equivalence huh buddy. GTFO with your nonsense.
Considering that Trump is even demonstrability worse since the election (hard to believe but true) and the ethical side, your whole skit is laughable.
You live in lala land in your head. Couching ignorance with a lot of blah blah about science is just a big ass joke.
And yeah, I'm an engineer and involved in actual science since the late 1980s, so try it someone else.
I can’t remember the last good Apple ad. Maybe that Christmas ad a few years ago but that’s it. Meanwhile I see Pixel ads on TV every day. They’re not great either but they do use cool music and make the phone look fun.
WOW. Cook is really shoving this stuff down people’s throats.
Apple is about products and services. Not about Cooks preferred lifestyle. Stop using the company as a personal preference platform.
How, exactly? Ads are usually targeted at a demographic anyway. As the article stats these ads are Australian only to celebrate their recent Same Sex Marriage laws. LBGQT people have long used Apple’s products why shouldn’t they sometimes advertise to them?
Furthermore, how do you think non-Christian people feel about all the Christmas marketing shoved down their throats yeah after year?
WOW. Cook is really shoving this stuff down people’s throats.
Apple is about products and services. Not about Cooks preferred lifestyle. Stop using the company as a personal preference platform.
Nonsense. Gays are a part of society and the buy iPhones too. Many have more disposable income so it's good business to include the market in advertising.
BTW odd choice of words - Cook shoving something down your throat? What?
Wouldn't it be nice if they could just show humans who are happy that they've found love, without the details being such a big deal?
They did. Nobody spazzes out when it's just different-gendered humans happy in love, not sure why those same people get triggered when it's same-gendered in a small percentage of Apple's total ad work.
Comments
Apple tends to be on the socially liberal side of the bandwagon, so hey, it happens. And they've got to accept that some may not like that. That's their decision, and shareholders can act accordingly.
Nevertheless, take a look at the posts here spouting "lifestyle choice" and "personal preference" and wonder to yourself why people keep killing themselves when they realise they're gay and they can't help that. Even on an Apple-focused site we can't be civil and respectful to others just because some find the acts in an ad personally distasteful...
Thanks guys.
- From a married gay Australian guy.
So to the thinly veiled bigots, try to keep a historical point of view in your mind - since these laws were changed for a reason. There is no silent majority, there is no hidden agenda. The overwhelming majority of people support marriage equality, you don't have to like that - but it's the reality. An anecdotal survey of your circle of friends is not a representation of society as a whole. Society approves of these messages.
To the people who think they should grow up, you're right, they should. But smugness and equality don't go hand in hand, find the common good between you both and work from there, today you might disagree on this point, and tomorrow you may agree on another - that's life, work with it.
Sydney, right now, is turning gay for the 40th Anniversary of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. Apple aren't the only company jumping on board. My bank (ANZ bank) have been doing GAYTMs for a while. http://www.campaignbrief.com/2018/02/anz-unveils-latest-gaytms-to-c.html
Also, what details, some people are "triggered" (abuse of the term) by just two men holding hands so for them, anything short of men having their face in a decolletage is too "gay".
The status quo, or some past where X was on top always has defenders they have or do profit from it.
They also somehow believe everything is a zero sum game. They lose something if someone else gains.
Any hint of rising the overall state of the nation and working for the common good has fallen by the wayside in the modern GOP;
it's every person for himself, everyone will soon be a millionaire and will just sweep the bones of the inadequate fallen by the wayside.
Often populists play that zero sum gain to cleave away groups of people by pitting one interest against the other despite the fact they are much closer in reality.
And sadly, it works, people will support anything if they appeal to their xenophobia, sexism, homophobia despite the same person promising things screwing them 10 different ways on other issues.
Poor whites have much more in common with poor blacks yet they have been cleaved away from democrats by blaming POC for their plight when they in fact are getting fleeced the same.
LBJ said that as long as the GOP promised they'd make the POC suffer more than them, they'd be OK with them being fleeced. Considering he was talking about this while the southern strategy had no emerged yet (talking about the Goldwater faction of the GOP), that has turned amazingly prescient.
Finally,
Forcing people live by their so called "morality" wouldn't be so funny if people like that hadn't voted and still supported mr orange cesspool of immorality himself. They are taken down to people while mired in shameful sludge. That's something.
No doubt. 'Triggered' now basically means, 'I don't like your view and I'm going to see if I can use my discomfort with it to silence you.'
A large quantity of people do disagree, but they are too scared to lose their jobs, be harmed, etc. to speak up. I think they should get a bit more back-bone, but the reality is that none of these societal moves were based on science or political populism. They were ram-rodded into place by activists, with any dissenters facing harsh retribution.
It's good to be tolerant and respectful (if there is true tolerance, as the next post points out), but it's quite one thing tolerating a life-style choice, and quite another when the law is changed for the State to be promoting particular life-style choices. That's where the big fuss over all of this is. Anyone who doesn't understand why the fuss, simply hasn't spent 5 minutes critically thinking about this matter.
Could you state the reason for the law change then, and define 'marriage equality' for me? AFAIK, the rest of the letters in the LGBT+++ acronym still aren't represented. First, you have to define what the thing actually is that you're fighting for equality over. THAT is where the debate should be (but it was skipped via activism). I'm all for discussion, debate, adjusting laws when necessary, equality, etc... but there never really a good discussion and debate on this one. It was forced on society.
There is zero parallel there, so why bring that into the discussion? And, while I might agree on the cesspool or immorality, have you considered that maybe some realized the even bigger cesspool we were facing as the alternative? I know a lot of people who didn't vote for Trump (including me) as they couldn't stand either, and an awful lot of people who voted for him, holding their nose. Trump won to avoid the alternative (even w/o a huge segment of the conservative vote). So, that argument doesn't really fly.
But, morality aside, this debate can also be argued based on science and good-ol common sense. It just never has been.
They choose not to. Instead preferring divisions, derision and outright insults based on their on-going bias. Not to mention various claims of being the victimized when ever anyone pointed out they weren't presenting any credible or relevant argument. If those people who claim "Morality" aren't going to put their science and good-old common sense positions when given such a public platform, then maybe it just doesn't exist.
The side arguing for the change did put forward many good-old common sense arguments around people just being people and that is one of the reasons why the vote was in favour.
You actually don't believe in actual science or common sense, cause factually you are basing none of your actual judgment in reality.
You believe in fake news, fake reality, your judgment call and "feels". The actual opposite of everything you claim.
For a person of color, sexual minority, gender equality, someone who actually cares about the environment, the poor, actual real science, the government as an instrument of good in society, etc They were in no way similar and the actual results up to now proves each of these things conclusively; for people I know, consequences are real and dire.
That fucking turd trump had 3500 litigation in which he settles making everyone lose their shirt, had exploited his workers, he'd been a litigated racists with racist parents since the 1970s, his mentor and many in his entourage had mob ties, he hid his financial position in thousands of shell corporations, he used a charity as a slush fund, defrauded thousands of students, he'd filed 6 bankruptcies, had hundreds of business failures, even before elected had thousands of demonstrable lies about just about everything, he was an extreme misogynist on tape for decades, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention the whole Russian thing he'd been lying about even before the election... "no ties".. Despite his god damn son saying the opposite just a few years earlier.
I've been following that turd's "accomplishment" since the he emerged onto the scene in the early 1980s and I've known about Clinton since the late 1980s.
So, WTF is the equivalence huh buddy. GTFO with your nonsense.
Considering that Trump is even demonstrability worse since the election (hard to believe but true) and the ethical side, your whole skit is laughable.
You live in lala land in your head.
Couching ignorance with a lot of blah blah about science is just a big ass joke.
And yeah, I'm an engineer and involved in actual science since the late 1980s, so try it someone else.
How, exactly? Ads are usually targeted at a demographic anyway. As the article stats these ads are Australian only to celebrate their recent Same Sex Marriage laws. LBGQT people have long used Apple’s products why shouldn’t they sometimes advertise to them?
Furthermore, how do you think non-Christian people feel about all the Christmas marketing shoved down their throats yeah after year?
Only a sad old fool would be triggered by two people in love dancing.
Nonsense. Gays are a part of society and the buy iPhones too. Many have more disposable income so it's good business to include the market in advertising.
BTW odd choice of words - Cook shoving something down your throat? What?