Advertising and depression

[Lark]

I'm watching a three part UK BBC documentary production on consumerism called The Men Who Made Us Spend, its very interesting and in the first two episodes focused upon politics, social trends and health and the final episode I'm watching now they are talking about advertising and marketing towards kids, one thing which stood out to me as a pre-Reagan era challenge from a consumers lobby which was campaigning for regulation or control of advertising because it wasnt true. One pundit said:

"Children are being told that 20 and 30 dollar toys work every time, all the other kids have them, they need to have them too to be happy"

Now their opponents were the libertarians of their day, attacking nanny statism and reasserting personal and familial responsibility instead, Reagan came after and regulation bit the dust.

Anyway, what interests me is really what I've highlighted there, generalise that to adult and social expectations and I think its the key to a lot of situational and exogenous depression, ie non-biological or inherated conditions, and I know a bunch of therapies which focus almost entirely upon identifying that thinking, fact checking and proving it false.

What do you think about this? I think this form of thinking, or very similar sorts, primed by advertising a long time ago and probably integrated into public psychology for years could account for a lot, different kinds of feelings of entitlement and envy, rape culture, different kinds of abuse, there should be an interest in this left, right and centre.

 

[muir]

The corporations employ child psychologists to help them with product design and advertising

The psychologists told the corporations that the children will nag their parents for toys which they have seen in adverts; they called this the 'nag factor'

They also found that the people most susceptible to the nag factor is single mums and they seek to target that demographic

 

[Lark]

Awh man what 27 views and the only person replying is Muir, I know without even looking he's just posted "Its the Rothschilds behind this" or words to that effect.

 

[muir]

Do you want to expand on your OP?

I find it funny that you are accusing me of talking about the rothschilds while sporting an eye in the pyramid avatar!

You are feeding the situation

And i didn't mention the rothschilds on this thread...YOU did

I spoke about the corporations and how they seek to affect people through advertising in what is frankly a pretty depressing way

 

[Khalid]

Dear Lark,

The kind of "culture" you mention here — of envy, rape, different kinds of abuse etc. — couldn't ever become so widespread among different individuals, under a different epoch; of course the advertising methods themselves have become more elaborated and effective, but their advancements (based on new technologies, deeper understanding of "human"* psychology etc.) came with a change of the public they were directed to: before, we could speak about masses composed of men, now we must analyze men that are no more than almost homogeneous components of a mass, men whose opinions, tastes, ideas etc. only exist in function of the group they're part of: you look at one of them and you know them all, you look at them and all you see is the flags they represent; the way they dress, the songs they listen to, the way the speak and so on, all the elements on their persona are just pointers to reassert they similarity to the ones they're alike (to what all them are alike). They only exist when they're part of something, otherwise they disappear: if there's not someone to support their opinions, they have none; if there's not someone to "like" their pictures in the social networks, the most important events in their lives did not happen at all. If you didn't, go ahead and read José de Ortega y Gasset's La rebelión de las masas, a fundamental book to which you can easily find its translation in English. I'm sure you will thank me for this recommendation if you didn't know it yet. Anyway, to sum it up: the decadence advertised is a problem because it finds fertile soil.

If you have managed to create the kind of individuals I've described above, it will be very easy to move them without that much effort because of the mimetic nature of their desire: they want something because, and as much as, someone else wants it, what doesn't only mean choosing a car over another, but also behaviors and "opinions" — about the mimetic nature of desire, I effusively recommend René Girard's Mensonge romantique et Vérité romanesque. It's common to ignore the logic in favor of being subservient to popular figures, or any that in a given context represents power and believed "superiority". When we don't have men but ants, it's easy to spread stupidity — or violence, or anything else for what that matters. You know, when we ignore truth — in favor of a ideology, appraisals, money or anything else —, we are reduced to less than pawns (at least pawns don't go around, smiling and willingly doing destructive stuff, eh?).

But well, if the above paragraph hints to how some things may become widespread, and if the one above that hints about how things could get so far, we need to speak about who and why. We can begin by studying Frankfurt School. Begin by reflecting for a while about the new sexual morals we have and all the justifications we have for why it's "so good" — you can collect some associated common sayings, such as "religion is nothing but oppression!", "make love, don't make war" and so on. Then go back to where we heard this sayings for the first time, back on the sixties, and read about all that stuff of sexual liberation and so on — don't forget about the hippies and the alike! Then you read Marcuse's Eros and Civilization. You will see from where all that stuff came from and the ideological positions supporting it. If you're astonished enough about the perfection of the execution, to the details, of what you've read in the book (and, I hope, scared about what they want to accomplish), look for similar books, from other authors of the Frankfurt School, to see how much of what we've been discussing here can be found there. Then you can look for their bigger works, to discover what their main objectives were (or, since there's a clear continuation to their work, what their main objectives are) — after studying the sexual revolution they planned and the exactness of what happened in the following years, you will be too smart to say to yourself: "Oh, no, ANOTHER conspiration!". The last step is realizing that, even if that school of thinking (or unthinking) is not directly responsible for much of we've been seeing nowadays, they share the same beliefs and strategies to another important groups and individuals which can be traced to the objects of discussion here.

But of course maybe you've read all of that above already. Then, this is what I can say: remember Ortega y Gasset, don't forget about René Girard, reflect deeply on the effects of the Frankfurt School's cultural revolution.

Best regards to you.

 

[Lark]

Dear Lark,

The kind of "culture" you mention here — of envy, rape, different kinds of abuse etc. — couldn't ever become so widespread among different individuals, under a different epoch; of course the advertising methods themselves have become more elaborated and effective, but their advancements (based on new technologies, deeper understanding of "human"* psychology etc.) came with a change of the public they were directed to: before, we could speak about masses composed of men, now we must analyze men that are no more than almost homogeneous components of a mass, men whose opinions, tastes, ideas etc. only exist in function of the group they're part of: you look at one of them and you know them all, you look at them and all you see is the flags they represent; the way they dress, the songs they listen to, the way the speak and so on, all the elements on their persona are just pointers to reassert they similarity to the ones they're alike (to what all them are alike). They only exist when they're part of something, otherwise they disappear: if there's not someone to support their opinions, they have none; if there's not someone to "like" their pictures in the social networks, the most important events in their lives did not happen at all. If you didn't, go ahead and read José de Ortega y Gasset's La rebelión de las masas, a fundamental book to which you can easily find its translation in English. I'm sure you will thank me for this recommendation if you didn't know it yet. Anyway, to sum it up: the decadence advertised is a problem because it finds fertile soil.

If you have managed to create the kind of individuals I've described above, it will be very easy to move them without that much effort because of the mimetic nature of their desire: they want something because, and as much as, someone else wants it, what doesn't only mean choosing a car over another, but also behaviors and "opinions" — about the mimetic nature of desire, I effusively recommend René Girard's Mensonge romantique et Vérité romanesque. It's common to ignore the logic in favor of being subservient to popular figures, or any that in a given context represents power and believed "superiority". When we don't have men but ants, it's easy to spread stupidity — or violence, or anything else for what that matters. You know, when we ignore truth — in favor of a ideology, appraisals, money or anything else —, we are reduced to less than pawns (at least pawns don't go around, smiling and willingly doing destructive stuff, eh?).

But well, if the above paragraph hints to how some things may become widespread, and if the one above that hints about how things could get so far, we need to speak about who and why. We can begin by studying Frankfurt School. Begin by reflecting for a while about the new sexual morals we have and all the justifications we have for why it's "so good" — you can collect some associated common sayings, such as "religion is nothing but oppression!", "make love, don't make war" and so on. Then go back to where we heard this sayings for the first time, back on the sixties, and read about all that stuff of sexual liberation and so on — don't forget about the hippies and the alike! Then you read Marcuse's Eros and Civilization. You will see from where all that stuff came from and the ideological positions supporting it. If you're astonished enough about the perfection of the execution, to the details, of what you've read in the book (and, I hope, scared about what they want to accomplish), look for similar books, from other authors of the Frankfurt School, to see how much of what we've been discussing here can be found there. Then you can look for their bigger works, to discover what their main objectives were (or, since there's a clear continuation to their work, what their main objectives are) — after studying the sexual revolution they planned and the exactness of what happened in the following years, you will be too smart to say to yourself: "Oh, no, ANOTHER conspiration!". The last step is realizing that, even if that school of thinking (or unthinking) is not directly responsible for much of we've been seeing nowadays, they share the same beliefs and strategies to another important groups and individuals which can be traced to the objects of discussion here.

But of course maybe you've read all of that above already. Then, this is what I can say: remember Ortega y Gasset, don't forget about René Girard, reflect deeply on the effects of the Frankfurt School's cultural revolution.

Best regards to you.

Dude between this and the other post about Marx and the Nazis I can tell you're big on the while illuminati trip, I'll level with you incase you didnt see any of my posts to Muir, ever, or something. I think that's all bullshit. I know a lot about the Frankfurt School, critical theory and its splits, divisions and legacies, which is a lot more complex, and hell of a lot more ineffectual and marginal, than any of the ways its featured in conspiracies succeed in portraying.

 

[say what]

Not quite sure what you're asking, but to add onto [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] point - marketing and consumerism has huge psychology components- particularly those associated with the learning reward system. Companies pay psychologists to test their marketing champaigns - focus groups, test subjects...everything is researched so that it attacks our memories, emotions, and ideals.

Imagery is a huge component- the use of images and colors that illicit warm and happy feelings are so huge. Marketing is all about getting people to feel something so they buy the product, and when the product fails to fill that void, they go back to buy more.

If you're interested in the psychology behind marketing and ads, there's tons of it out there. And there's some great case studies looking at how products like Coke uses these things to make us buy their products.

 

[Khalid]

Dude between this and the other post about Marx and the Nazis I can tell you're big on the while illuminati trip, I'll level with you incase you didnt see any of my posts to Muir, ever, or something. I think that's all bullshit. I know a lot about the Frankfurt School, critical theory and its splits, divisions and legacies, which is a lot more complex, and hell of a lot more ineffectual and marginal, than any of the ways its featured in conspiracies succeed in portraying.

Dear Lark,

Oh, no, I'm not tripping on that. Not at all. But, you see, this is not a choice between believing any single conspiracy theory out there or being sure that no one is stupid enough to want to concentrate as much power as possible — that's a good definition of revolution, by the way: a deep change in an entire society (in many aspects, like morals, economy etc.) by the means of the concentration of power. When it comes to the Frankfurt School, of course you can laugh about that in USA, for instance, but not on Latin America: it's as easy as searching for the Foro de São Paulo meetings transcripts — they're the one to publish them —; not only their declared intent was a "socialist" revolution by means of the Frankfurt School's methods, but over the years they've detailed every step to it. For example: they say they will legalize drugs here (because that's where much of FARC's money come from, one of their prime economical supports), in a meeting with the leader of FARC and the presidents of our countries, and then, what happens? Here come the drug liberation laws. It's not about looking for "clues" on meaningless words coming from some individuals, but about hearing they say they will do something, and how and when, and watching it happening in the exact same way, on the exact same time. And, of course, ours is one example. If you don't believe in people wanting that much power, well, think about Middle East and the global caliphate. Not only is a declared intention, but you can see many literally dying for it, and killing, and destroying and... well, you get the point.

My best regards.

 

[Lark]

Dear Lark,

Oh, no, I'm not tripping on that. Not at all. But, you see, this is not a choice between believing any single conspiracy theory out there or being sure that no one is stupid enough to want to concentrate as much power as possible — that's a good definition of revolution, by the way: a deep change in an entire society (in many aspects, like morals, economy etc.) by the means of the concentration of power. When it comes to the Frankfurt School, of course you can laugh about that in USA, for instance, but not on Latin America: it's as easy as searching for the Foro de São Paulo meetings transcripts — they're the one to publish them —; not only their declared intent was a "socialist" revolution by means of the Frankfurt School's methods, but over the years they've detailed every step to it. For example: they say they will legalize drugs here (because that's where much of FARC's money come from, one of their prime economical supports), in a meeting with the leader of FARC and the presidents of our countries, and then, what happens? Here come the drug liberation laws. It's not about looking for "clues" on meaningless words coming from some individuals, but about hearing they say they will do something, and how and when, and watching it happening in the exact same way, on the exact same time. And, of course, ours is one example. If you don't believe in people wanting that much power, well, think about Middle East and the global caliphate. Not only is a declared intention, but you can see many literally dying for it, and killing, and destroying and... well, you get the point.

My best regards.

The Frankfurt School was a group of Jewish and German academic refugees who came to the states because the Nazis would have none of them being Jews and socialists or communists, it left them in a difficult position, how to continue academic careers when socialism and communism were unpopular in the US and the US itself showed a lot of the hall marks of what have become fascism and nazism in their home countries.

Now some of them remained clear about being socialists or communists, like Erich Fromm, while others constructed all sorts of cloak and dagger euphenisms like critical theory etc. That's only one instance of their clear disagreements between one another, Fromm had a major clash with Marcuse, over a lot of things but mainly he, rightly I would say, that he didnt understand Freud and misinterpreted him in Eros and Civilisation and elsewhere, also that his critiques in One Dimensional Man were very nihilistic and destructive, he actually wound up worried that Marcuse, his one time friend, was likely to be becoming mentally unstable.

Fromm was, I believe, as representative of what the Frankfurt School was meant to have been as they come but he got suspended and expelled for reason which are largely politik, selfish and corrupt. Its something that's still not settled among the more numbskulled of the trotskyist legions.

Although Fromm was able to validate the radical or humanistic aspects of some traditions and traditionalism, including religion, and that it was not that a better alternative existed and this would threaten the status quo but that the status quo was such a departure from the human nature that it would eventually become untenable. Still a bit difficult for some left wingers to grasp so he still is dismissed as a moralist and conservative.

So far as the FARC goes, anyone can lay claim to a particular political tradition or school of thought, as the saying goes the devil can quote scripture when he wants to, Russia traded on being "socialist", "communist" etc. for as long as those ideas were popular, they invented and tried to exploit the idea of a "war on terror" but the US and UK stole the march on them and took that idea up as their own.

The idea of legalising drugs doesnt appear to have anything to do with socialism, its about money, there's no one who's a radical libertarian capitalist who is going to think that's a bad idea but they are supposedly all out against anything socialist or done by "socialist" regimes.

 

[Khalid]

Let me quote Brazilian ex-president Luiz Inácio: "We don't know the kind of socialism we want." You're right, is not about "socialism", but about money (and, of course, ultimately power). Power is what they want, to build the kind of America they want to, and we can call that whatever we want, be it socialism or not. And like Antonio Gramsci would say, their moral is (and must be) relative: good is what's good for the party on that particular moment, and only while it is still being helpful (that can change anytime), and bad what isn't helpful at that moment, which can also change without warning. It doesn't matter if they agree or not with Marx or Gramsci, but surely they will use the elements of their writings, be as a practical advice or propaganda, if doing that suits them.

 

[sassafras]

I'm watching a three part UK BBC documentary production on consumerism called The Men Who Made Us Spend, its very interesting and in the first two episodes focused upon politics, social trends and health and the final episode I'm watching now they are talking about advertising and marketing towards kids, one thing which stood out to me as a pre-Reagan era challenge from a consumers lobby which was campaigning for regulation or control of advertising because it wasnt true. One pundit said:

"Children are being told that 20 and 30 dollar toys work every time, all the other kids have them, they need to have them too to be happy"

Now their opponents were the libertarians of their day, attacking nanny statism and reasserting personal and familial responsibility instead, Reagan came after and regulation bit the dust.

Anyway, what interests me is really what I've highlighted there, generalise that to adult and social expectations and I think its the key to a lot of situational and exogenous depression, ie non-biological or inherated conditions, and I know a bunch of therapies which focus almost entirely upon identifying that thinking, fact checking and proving it false.

What do you think about this? I think this form of thinking, or very similar sorts, primed by advertising a long time ago and probably integrated into public psychology for years could account for a lot, different kinds of feelings of entitlement and envy, rape culture, different kinds of abuse, there should be an interest in this left, right and centre.

To be honest, I don't find this to be all that a surprising thought. The divide between idealism and reality is something that's pretty conscious in our culture milieu. We've been talking about how we're constantly bombarded by the unrealistic standards of beauty, success, relationships and body image for the last two decades... and yet, even though most people would acknowledge that they're being 'sold' an image, on a deeper level, it pushes up against the internal mechanism we all have to protect ourselves from the stark realities in allowing ourselves to hope that maybe the things we're promised are actually true.

As for children, well, even before the age of advertising, children were sold on structured, moralistic tales of fantasy, adventure, and an ideal world where evil was punished and good was rewarded. That rules in life were simple. Study hard, eat your vegetables, help ma and pa around the house and say your prayers at night. Growing up, you think these kids didn't feel like they've been cheated somehow?

Grappling with the line between the despair of reality and hope of idealism was always a source of discomfort for people, but I think advertising definitely exacerbates it. Especially considering how entrenched it is in our world. And self-aware adults struggle with it. Children haven't yet developed the psychological defenses to protect themselves from it.

 

[Lark]

To be honest, I don't find this to be all that a surprising thought. The divide between idealism and reality is something that's pretty conscious in our culture milieu. We've been talking about how we're constantly bombarded by the unrealistic standards of beauty, success, relationships and body image for the last two decades... and yet, even though most people would acknowledge that they're being 'sold' an image, on a deeper level, it pushes up against the internal mechanism we all have to protect ourselves from the stark realities in allowing ourselves to hope that maybe the things we're promised are actually true.

As for children, well, even before the age of advertising, children were sold on structured, moralistic tales of fantasy, adventure, and an ideal world where evil was punished and good was rewarded. That rules in life were simple. Study hard, eat your vegetables, help ma and pa around the house and say your prayers at night. Growing up, you think these kids didn't feel like they've been cheated somehow?

Grappling with the line between the despair of reality and hope of idealism was always a source of discomfort for people, but I think advertising definitely exacerbates it. Especially considering how entrenched it is in our world. And self-aware adults struggle with it. Children haven't yet developed the psychological defenses to protect themselves from it.

I think the previous mythologies are better than the ad agencies mythologies when it comes to the kids.

Its not unprecidented but I think that its precursors had nothing like the impact that what I'd discussing here has had, or if it did its become exhausted and ad mania has replaced any positive legacies we've been unconsciously trading on.

The bit I've highlighted is really what I'm thinking is the most significant, I know that there's an advertising and marketing zeitgheist which talks about everyone since the nineties being media saavy and "post-materialist", about this I'm not so sure, if it is true in any sense is likely to be pretty shallow as I really think that in the social and individual unconscious things build up like sediment on a river bed, that's a little bit more insidious than the whole "I know this is a lie but I live in hope" thing which I'm sure happens too.

Part of where I'm coming from with this, just me personally, is a reflection upon an interview I heard about a celebrity radio broadcaster in the UK who post-therapy talked about their epiphany in which they realised that everyone else were not experiencing relationships and good times she felt she was missing out on, leading to a bad relationship, domestic abuse, alcohol binges etc. Now I'd always sort of thought that way, been skeptical, as a result I'm generally a little more happy than I find the normal run of the mill people to be, although I'm surprised my mindset is not more commonplace than I find it to be.

 

[say what]

I think the previous mythologies are better than the ad agencies mythologies when it comes to the kids.

Its not unprecidented but I think that its precursors had nothing like the impact that what I'd discussing here has had, or if it did its become exhausted and ad mania has replaced any positive legacies we've been unconsciously trading on.

The bit I've highlighted is really what I'm thinking is the most significant, I know that there's an advertising and marketing zeitgheist which talks about everyone since the nineties being media saavy and "post-materialist", about this I'm not so sure, if it is true in any sense is likely to be pretty shallow as I really think that in the social and individual unconscious things build up like sediment on a river bed, that's a little bit more insidious than the whole "I know this is a lie but I live in hope" thing which I'm sure happens too.

Part of where I'm coming from with this, just me personally, is a reflection upon an interview I heard about a celebrity radio broadcaster in the UK who post-therapy talked about their epiphany in which they realised that everyone else were not experiencing relationships and good times she felt she was missing out on, leading to a bad relationship, domestic abuse, alcohol binges etc. Now I'd always sort of thought that way, been skeptical, as a result I'm generally a little more happy than I find the normal run of the mill people to be, although I'm surprised my mindset is not more commonplace than I find it to be.

I'm not seeing the divide here. The ad agencies and marketing of products are capitalizing on these ideals, and furthering their place in our society. I don't think you can just discount the impact of commercialism on us- it is everywhere. You literally cannot escape messages for consumers.

 

[Lark]

I'm not seeing the divide here. The ad agencies and marketing of products are capitalizing on these ideals, and furthering their place in our society. I don't think you can just discount the impact of commercialism on us- it is everywhere. You literally cannot escape messages for consumers.

I'm not sure what this post is about. Did you read the OP or thread?

 

[sassafras]

I think the previous mythologies are better than the ad agencies mythologies when it comes to the kids.

Its not unprecidented but I think that its precursors had nothing like the impact that what I'd discussing here has had, or if it did its become exhausted and ad mania has replaced any positive legacies we've been unconsciously trading on.

The bit I've highlighted is really what I'm thinking is the most significant, I know that there's an advertising and marketing zeitgheist which talks about everyone since the nineties being media saavy and "post-materialist", about this I'm not so sure, if it is true in any sense is likely to be pretty shallow as I really think that in the social and individual unconscious things build up like sediment on a river bed, that's a little bit more insidious than the whole "I know this is a lie but I live in hope" thing which I'm sure happens too.

Part of where I'm coming from with this, just me personally, is a reflection upon an interview I heard about a celebrity radio broadcaster in the UK who post-therapy talked about their epiphany in which they realised that everyone else were not experiencing relationships and good times she felt she was missing out on, leading to a bad relationship, domestic abuse, alcohol binges etc. Now I'd always sort of thought that way, been skeptical, as a result I'm generally a little more happy than I find the normal run of the mill people to be, although I'm surprised my mindset is not more commonplace than I find it to be.

I think advertising just capitalizes on our inherent, psychological weaknesses. I don't think it necessarily creates new ones so much as it pushes them to extremes and allows them to go bay at the moon. Each generation feels like the past was different, more idealistic, more pure... but the truth is, the human condition remains the same. We're just peering at it from different angles and seeing it expressed in different mediums. We always think that someone else has it better than us. It always looks like someone else has an easier time of it. Whether we're in 2014 and envying the Facebook lives of our friends or we're peasants in 1785 France thinking about how our neighbour has an easier time of churning butter because he boasts about how much he can produce in a day...

At the end of the day, when you compare today's everyman with the historical everyman, we aren't much different. We haven't evolved or devolved-- we've just adapted.

That being said, though, I will say that I think advertising has more far-reaching consequences than just making people feel bad about what they have or don't have in their lives. It makes the feeling of wanting "that particular toy" a lot more universal and in one fell swoop, changes how MILLIONS of people feel about themselves that they later take into their social relationships and build up an image that they feel they must portray. And the other dangerous thing? It can change the culture in a hot minute, so even when you've finally gratified that need, you won't be for long. There's always more you're missing out on and feeling less in ways that you wouldn't have imagined feeling.

 

[say what]

I'm not sure what this post is about. Did you read the OP or thread?

...did you read my post?

 

[say what]

I think advertising just capitalizes on our inherent, psychological weaknesses. I don't think it necessarily creates new ones so much as it pushes them to extremes and allows them to go bay at the moon. Each generation feels like the past was different, more idealistic, more pure... but the truth is, the human condition remains the same. We're just peering at it from different angles and seeing it expressed in different mediums. We always think that someone else has it better than us. It always looks like someone else has an easier time of it. Whether we're in 2014 and envying the Facebook lives of our friends or we're peasants in 1785 France thinking about how our neighbour has an easier time of churning butter because he boasts about how much he can produce in a day...

At the end of the day, when you compare today's everyman with the historical everyman, we aren't much different. We haven't evolved or devolved-- we've just adapted.

That being said, though, I will say that I think advertising has more far-reaching consequences than just making people feel bad about what they have or don't have in their lives. It makes the feeling of wanting "that particular toy" a lot more universal and in one fell swoop, changes how MILLIONS of people feel about themselves that they later take into their social relationships and build up an image that they feel they must portray. And the other dangerous thing? It can change the culture in a hot minute, so even when you've finally gratified that need, you won't be for long. There's always more you're missing out on and feeling less in ways that you wouldn't have imagined feeling.

Exactly! The grass is always greener on the other side! Marketing only perpetuates this idea by showing you how better off someone is for having a certain product.

And I completely agree with your last paragraph! This is why 'fads' have such an impact. A fad can be taken in by an entire society and shape their behaviours and expectations instantaneously! Apple is fantastic at doing this. I can't even imagine my life without a smart phone- the worst part of it, is it's curbed my working behaviour to be 'on' 24/7.

 

[Lark]

...did you read my post?

I did and you had written something which appeared to be a counterpoint which was exactly the point I had made in the OP and subsequent posts. I did not post anything more than what I did because I was hoping to spare you the embarassment of point this out.

Now I'm not sure what is going on here because I already got a rep. from someone I'd consider myself not to be on bad terms with suggesting that my last post to you was rude, so I think I'm going to stop speaking with you and remove all grounds for misunderstanding.

NB just realised it was yourself who repped me, I sometimes dont recognise posters when they change their avatars, my mistake.

 

[say what]

I did and you had written something which appeared to be a counterpoint which was exactly the point I had made in the OP and subsequent posts. I did not post anything more than what I did because I was hoping to spare you the embarassment of point this out.

Now I'm not sure what is going on here because I already got a rep. from someone I'd consider myself not to be on bad terms with suggesting that my last post to you was rude, so I think I'm going to stop speaking with you and remove all grounds for misunderstanding.

NB just realised it was yourself who repped me, I sometimes dont recognise posters when they change their avatars, my mistake.

My response was in regard to your comment (below), and not to your original post:

I think the previous mythologies are better than the ad agencies mythologies when it comes to the kids.

Its not unprecidented but I think that its precursors had nothing like the impact that what I'd discussing here has had, or if it did its become exhausted and ad mania has replaced any positive legacies we've been unconsciously trading on.

The bit I've highlighted is really what I'm thinking is the most significant, I know that there's an advertising and marketing zeitgheist which talks about everyone since the nineties being media saavy and "post-materialist", about this I'm not so sure, if it is true in any sense is likely to be pretty shallow as I really think that in the social and individual unconscious things build up like sediment on a river bed, that's a little bit more insidious than the whole "I know this is a lie but I live in hope" thing which I'm sure happens too.

Part of where I'm coming from with this, just me personally, is a reflection upon an interview I heard about a celebrity radio broadcaster in the UK who post-therapy talked about their epiphany in which they realised that everyone else were not experiencing relationships and good times she felt she was missing out on, leading to a bad relationship, domestic abuse, alcohol binges etc. Now I'd always sort of thought that way, been skeptical, as a result I'm generally a little more happy than I find the normal run of the mill people to be, although I'm surprised my mindset is not more commonplace than I find it to be.

To me this reads as though you are separating the ideals (or mythologies as you say) of previous generations, to those that are imposed on us now through the media. My point was that you can't separate 'previous mythologies' from the current 'ad agencies mythologies', one is not better because they are the same. Media and marketing are using ingrained responses and ideals in us to cue responses and emotions- they have always been there, and will always be there, but they are being exacerbated by the media. As from your OP, I agree that a rape culture, sexism, racism, classism are largely fuelled by the media and marketing.

I would prefer that if you don't follow or understand what I'm saying to ask me to clarify, rather than assume that I haven't read anything and am posting a flippant and unrelated posted. As for what embarrassment that you're putting me through, I'm not sure. To me it seemed like you were P.O.'d that I didn't agree with you.

We're not on bad terms, I just thought you were being a bit rude to me for no reason. I was trying to engage you in the conversation of this thread.

 

[Lark]

My response was in regard to your comment (below), and not to your original post:



To me this reads as though you are separating the ideals (or mythologies as you say) of previous generations, to those that are imposed on us now through the media. My point was that you can't separate 'previous mythologies' from the current 'ad agencies mythologies', one is not better because they are the same. Media and marketing are using ingrained responses and ideals in us to cue responses and emotions- they have always been there, and will always be there, but they are being exacerbated by the media. As from your OP, I agree that a rape culture, sexism, racism, classism are largely fuelled by the media and marketing.

I would prefer that if you don't follow or understand what I'm saying to ask me to clarify, rather than assume that I haven't read anything and am posting a flippant and unrelated posted. As for what embarrassment that you're putting me through, I'm not sure. To me it seemed like you were P.O.'d that I didn't agree with you.

We're not on bad terms, I just thought you were being a bit rude to me for no reason. I was trying to engage you in the conversation of this thread.

On what basis did you think I was being rude for no reason?

I dont believe the misunderstanding was on my part but I dont expect you to agree and I did not assume anything, I actually framed my response in the form of a question as I did not wish to assume anything.

Reread that and see if you think you've attributed thinking and motive to me when I posted that its impossible to know and consider if perhaps it has influenced your rep and this post? If you dont agree that's fine but its how I see it.