Blu-Ray Launches Next Week!

[Sad Jari]

Oh, please! Sony was just trying to make someone smile...

...just like every other advertiser who uses humor in their ads. It sounds oh-so-innocent when you say that they were just trying to make someone smile.

It's very selective advertising, aimed at young male demographic. I'm not going comment on whether anyone should take offense at such ads, but it was clear that some people would and even Sony had to realize that. They just figured that it would do more good than harm, that there would be more customers gained from that demographic than there would be lost from the soccer mom-demographic. Who themselves are probably not very important group to Sony, but they do pay little Timmy's toys and in the end tell what little Timmy will be playing with.

It's also of some interest that the campaign ran in Europe, instead of the somewhat more puritan US.

Personally I find Sony's attempts to get this so called street cred with their campaigns (especially the graffiti-one, but in general too) very, very sad and pathetic. Basically Sony has been running lots of image-building ads since the launch of PS2, probably even earlier too. Damn, if you have to sell your console by saying how cool it is, there's something really wrong with it.

And, anyone that won't continue buying Sony products because of that ad weren't ever true Sony customers to begin with.

Pray tell, what is a true Sony customer? Something akin to true believer? It sure sounds like that.

--Oh and believe me I know: those bastards! They're the first ones in history to demean females, even though that was in an entirely joking fashion.

It might not have been the smartest marketing ploy, but people need to lighten up.

They might have been the first to do it to sell a console, though.

I believe that the thing many people - including me - have issues with, is how these ads are apparently aimed at the lowest common denominator. And I feel that that rather insults my intelligence.

If one wants to do such advertising, one would be well advised to do it in a self-deprecating manner. For example Microsoft's 'Play with yourself'-ad for DOAX. It's funny, it's silly and it makes gentle fun of the target demographic, which in general makes it much more acceptable to people who would find it otherwise offensive. Sony's ads... well, they appear about as arrogant as Kutaragi himself, and completely without an ability to laugh at themselves.


Oh, couple of things from the article itself:

...and claimed that a new and improved controller was in the pipeline.

I remember the comments, but can anyone find a direct quote? Because I would love to know who said it, especially if it was mr Blunder, Kutaragi himself.

In itself the that's nothing to laugh at. But seeing how the 'improved' controller is just the old one, with rumble taken out of it and motion sensors - borrowed from Nintendo - put in, it gives entirely new meanings to the word 'improved'.

I guess that you could say that it's improved over the old controller, even though rumble is gone, but improved over the boomerang? Wouldn't that mean that Sony designed a controller that was worse than their previous one?

I swear, Ken must be some long lost relative of George W Bush; they both do okay as long as they don't open their mouths. But may God have mercy on the people whose job it is to explain what these dudes say, if they start to speak.

As far as the systems are concerned, I have no particular preference, but should Sony fail with PS3 I will be laughing so hard. Not at Sony, but at Kutaragi. And I hope that he's man enough to perform seppuku after his failure. Because it must be his fault. It is Playstation 3, after all. Like he said himself. It simply is not possible that Playstation 3 could fail. :-D

"If you consider the Playstation 3 a toy, then yes, it is an expensive toy. However, it is more than a toy. It is a Playstation 3. And it is the only Playstation 3." Sony's arrogance seemingly knows no bounds, especially as the Playstation 3, while perhaps not a 'toy', is certainly not a Dialysis Machine either. A little perspective, if you please, Ken.

Thank you for the great idea, Ferrago!

Now I just need a photo of a patient undergoing dialysis (preferably *very* happy looking patient), a picture of PS3 and Ken's (yet another) great quote. :-D

This is the stuff great photoshops are made of.


EDIT: Just a minor thing from Spiro's post... not really about respect, but about being treated as equals.

How about, 3) Men who actually believe that woman should be treated with respect as equals?

Well, if those ads had been making references to men, instead of women, would you have been offended? Answer honestly, now.

Because I wouldn't have been. Even the beauty contests for men - or what the heck they are called - don't offend in any way. I do find them hilariously campy, and often have doubts about the sanity of the contestants, but I don't find them offensive in any way.

Hell, there are calendars that have semi-nekkid dudes posing in them. And I know for a fact that women buy such things, because I personally came across one in a girl's room. Made me chuckle, really. So, women objectify men just like men objectify women, it's just less obvious and blatant.

Women even watch pr0n, btw.

 

[L. Spiro]

That wasn’t really the context in which I was making my point.

The idea of treating women as pure equals, either by treating women as if they were men, or by treating men as if they were women, raises a scope of issues far to expansive and controversial for my tastes (though something can be said about the fact that being treated “as a man” is different from being treated “as a woman”).

My point was on a more personal level—that is, how I would treat my own girlfriend in a relationship.
Sony tries to be cute by suggesting that all women have nothing to say but meaningless banter whose soul intent must be to cause men, who apparently are the only ones capable of meaningful output, to escape into a world of UMV, conveniently provided by Sony.
Let’s not forget that men just want to stare at their girlfriends’ naughty bits all day, because of course meaningful relationships is a concept altogether lost on gamers.

So, wait.  Sony is trying to “buy” my good graces by accusing me of being a male-elitist unsociable prick?
The very type of human who does need to drop dead?

Anybody that would be offended by that should seriously just drop dead.

The irony with this is that those women who got offended by this ad are mostly normal every-day people who just want to live their lives in peace, fall in love, have a family, and be happy.  What exactly did they do wrong to deserve this offensive ad?  Be born?

I believe that the thing many people - including me - have issues with, is how these ads are apparently aimed at the lowest common denominator. And I feel that that rather insults my intelligence.

Correct.
But not only to my intelligence, but to my character.
It is completely offensive on every level when Sony thinks they are going to appeal to me by telling me I can download porn and post naughty pictures of my dear girlfriend.


L. Spiro

 

[Qhimm]

How about 5) People who can't take a joke? Jesus, I've seen much more raw (racist) jokes flourish; an ad campaign with some exaggurated commentary on (male) "gamers" doesn't strike me as the end of the world. As if anyone who's ever been engrossed in a game (and had a girlfriend, admittedly that cuts the numbers down a bit) doesn't recognize the sentiment? And as if you'd honestly think that's what you're expected to do all the time? Jeez, for once there comes an ad with a bit of masculine humor, and a PC SWAT (Sensitive Words And Topics) team raids the place. Hint: it's funny because it's based on something true. It's okay to laugh at caricatures of sexist men, hell it'd even be okay to laugh at it if this was how all relationships looked. But seeing it in an ad doesn't force you to goddamn duplicate it, as little as playing GTA forces you to steal cars -- but you can still enjoy it. But by all means, go ahead and watch entirely humorless boring ads instead, or laugh forcibly at politically correct "jokes" where you only wish you could identify yourself with it. I put forth that if you shun this joke and claim "I would never treat my girlfriend like that", you're probably either a) lying, or b) haven't been in a long-term relationship. There are extremely few "perfect matches" out there, live with it.

Bet you if the ad had featured women using PSPs in similar, slightly sexist ways, there wouldn't be a beep worth of complaints, and definitely not angry news stories being written about it. How's that for equality? Men take the same beatings quietly without complaint, because somehow it's what's expected of us. Well screw that; that's not equality for women, that's submission and vengeance. Now, a campaign featuring both male and female PSP gamers would probably be the most politically correct thing to do, but then you'd still get the complaints because a part of it was offensive to women (even if the other part would then technically be as offensive to men). It's a brave new world, where it's offensive with male > female but not the other way around. Yay feminism!

Me I consider myself a proud masculinist, of the Maddox school. While somehow the term "feminist" has come to signify "supporting equal gender rights" or even "supporting women's revenge on men and the patriarchical society", I still claim "masculinist" to simply mean "being proud to be a man". That's not in any way exclusive of respecting women, quite the opposite, I love women; just that I'm tired of having to walk a finer line in today's politically correct society just because I'm male. Nor should I feel ashamed and apologetic just because I'm male. Yet I look around and watch politicians making laws giving women preference for top jobs, men being jailed on the mere accusation of rape (women's testimony is practically proof enough), and even some suggestions on a "male tax" to finance spousal abuse reparations, because "most perpetrators are male". Hallelujah!

Quite a rant this became, sorry about that. I just get fumed up by uptight, ultra-sensitive (and often hypocritical) politically correct "feminists" who get all riled up about a relatively harmless joke just because it's about women. It's not like the guy is hitting or raping women, he's just a guy with apparently enough sensitivity to get a girlfriend, oh and he's human. So what now, is it henceforth improper to joke about relationships unless the man unconditionally exists to serve the woman without regard for his own needs, or maybe to joke about women entirely? Based on gender equality then, of course joking about men will also become improper. And then with animal rights, no jokes about animals either. Hmm, that cuts down on the possible jokes a bit... but what about plants? There we go, from now on all jokes will be based on the "two tomatoes were crossing the road..." template. Yay! "Ha-ha-ha"!

Morons.

 

[Sad Jari]

Bet you if the ad had featured women using PSPs in similar, slightly sexist ways, there wouldn't be a beep worth of complaints, and definitely not angry news stories being written about it.

Wha?! In such case I would demand that Nearly Emasculated, Urban, Totally Effeminated and Redundant takes immediate action!

Hmm, that cuts down on the possible jokes a bit... but what about plants? There we go, from now on all jokes will be based on the "two tomatoes were crossing the road..." template. Yay! "Ha-ha-ha"!

No fair. NEUTER told me to talk to my plants, it makes them happy. I'm sure that they would be most offended by such remarks.

 

[L. Spiro]

How about 5) People who can't take a joke?

Ah, that would lend them a convenient win-win situation, wouldn’t it?  Of course, the ad is meant to appeal to whomever, so if those people think it is clever, mission accomplished.  But when the other side claims it’s offensive, well no problem, because it was just a joke, right?  They should lighten up!

I've seen much more raw (racist) jokes flourish

I hope that’s not actually intended as justification.

Hint: it's funny because it's based on something true.

Again, I’m not seeing why that should be justification.  If tobacco companies showed their consumers dying in hospitals from lung cancer, would that be funny, because it’s true?
How about making the dying people into caricatures who comically take one last swig off the cigarette, look at the camera, then say, “I’d die for that.”  Then fall down dead.  Ah, it’s so funny, because the guy chose to smoke all his life, and he died, ha.
If you consider this out of context because cigarettes kill while posting pictures of your girlfriend’s naughty bits doesn’t “harm” anyone, try looking at it from another perspective.
Both take otherwise tragic real-life situations and try to put a humorous spin on them, all for the sake of getting into your pocket, even though of course it means keeping the travesty going.
Of course, in my example, most people can actually see the tragic side to the story, so it won’t quite work as well as hiding the tragedy in an empty meaningless shallow relationship.

But seeing it in an ad doesn't force you to goddamn duplicate it, as little as playing GTA forces you to steal cars

I’m not sure you’re seeing the point.
I never at all suggested that the problem with laughing at their ads is that it would force me to then become the people in the ads doomed to a life of failed relationships.
I’m not laughing at their ads because it’s a personal offense. Why is it personal?  Why wouldn’t it be?  I’m the target of that ad, aren’t I?  I’m the one they want to buy their products.  So, doesn’t that suggest somehow that they must have tailored that ad for me?  So, doesn’t that suggest that they think I’m a self-righteous male-supremist prick who wouldn’t know a meaningful relationship if it bit me on the ass?  I sense some friction!
Hark!  For me to consider their ad a direct insult to my character and intelligence must mean I am too sensitive!  After all, I’ve never had a problem with Nintendo’s ads or Microsoft’s ads, even though I don’t even like Microsoft, so of course it’s my own sensitivity that would cause an issue out of the blue where none had been before.
And yet, millions of others noticed this same level of offense and one guy even found it worthy of mentioning in an article.

if you shun this joke and claim "I would never treat my girlfriend like that", you're probably either a) lying

Well, obviously not in my case.

or b) haven't been in a long-term relationship.

Again, I’m not sure why this is relevant.  Are you actually suggesting that all long-term relationships involving male gamers must somehow, at some point, include a stage where the male posts stickers of his girlfriend’s naughty bits on his day-to-day tools?  I’ll give you grace in the issue of “pointless” questions, only because there usually is some point where both sides have some tussle and feel the other side’s questions/issues are pointless.  But I’m not sure why encouraging them to “escape” from it is more responsible than encouraging them to work it out.

There are extremely few "perfect matches" out there, live with it.

Oh, I certainly live with it.  I just don’t try to turn it into a comical situation to extort money from people.

Bet you if the ad had featured women using PSPs in similar, slightly sexist ways, there wouldn't be a beep worth of complaints

Again, not the issue.
#1: No, I wouldn’t care if people attacked me in the same way.  Why?  Because I myself can handle it.  I decided on my own to simply ignore it.  Others may feel bad for me, just as I would feel bad for them being attacked, but because I can handle my own attacks means I am a hypocrite?
#2: That’s not the issue; my anger doesn’t stem from them attacking one group or another.  It stems from them assuming I am clueless to the concept of a meaningful relationship, then trying to put a happy spin on that to get into my wallet.

I just get fumed up by uptight, ultra-sensitive (and often hypocritical) politically correct "feminists" who get all riled up about a relatively harmless joke just because it's about women.

Again this was never the issue.
As I stated one post ago, the issues governing sexual equality are not areas where I care to tread.
I thought I had made this clear in my reply to Sad Jari.
Yes, I used my girlfriend (when I have one) as an example to relate to the situation, but the issue here is personal.  It isn’t about the attacks they made to them, it’s about the ways they offended me.


L. Spiro

 

[Sad Jari]

Just a small side note;

If you consider this out of context because cigarettes kill while posting pictures of your girlfriend’s naughty bits doesn’t “harm” anyone, try looking at it from another perspective.

I think that the idea was carrying naughty pictures of your girlfriend with you, not posting them anywhere.

Other than that, carry on.

 

[zero88]

Wow, I honestly have nothing else to say here, since my post got ripped into oblivion and back (and probably got tore up again). Threw out of context, dissected, raped, you name it! It probably happened to my post.

What I thought was a joking way to approach the situation, turned it into a controversial issue that's now probably labeled me the stereotype of "beating-my-girlfriend" kind of guy, just because I get a kick out of Sony's advertising.

 

[sfx1999]

Aww no one got my Beta joke. :-(

 

[Qhimm]

Oh-kay, you want a long post war, fair enough. First of all, Jari's reply is mandatory pre-reading as he clarifies a point I thought everyone already understood, but you can never be too careful.

Ah, that would lend them a convenient win-win situation, wouldn’t it?  Of course, the ad is meant to appeal to whomever, so if those people think it is clever, mission accomplished.  But when the other side claims it’s offensive, well no problem, because it was just a joke, right?  They should lighten up!

There's no pleasing hyper-sensitive people, because there'll always be someone offended by your actions. For example, I'm offended that you're making such a big fuss out of me thinking people should chill over a goddamn joke. Does that mean you should shut up to avoid potentially offending me?

Again, I’m not seeing why that should be justification.  If tobacco companies showed their consumers dying in hospitals from lung cancer, would that be funny, because it’s true?
How about making the dying people into caricatures who comically take one last swig off the cigarette, look at the camera, then say, “I’d die for that.”  Then fall down dead.  Ah, it’s so funny, because the guy chose to smoke all his life, and he died, ha.
If you consider this out of context because cigarettes kill while posting pictures of your girlfriend’s naughty bits doesn’t “harm” anyone, try looking at it from another perspective.
Both take otherwise tragic real-life situations and try to put a humorous spin on them, all for the sake of getting into your pocket, even though of course it means keeping the travesty going.
Of course, in my example, most people can actually see the tragic side to the story, so it won’t quite work as well as hiding the tragedy in an empty meaningless shallow relationship.

Fine, I retract my statement, changing it to "it wouldn't be funny if it wasn't based on something true". There, was it worth wasting so many words on correcting a grammatical technicality? Also, who are you to judge whether carrying around pictures of your girlfriend's naughty bits are "tragic"? My last girlfriend was really into things like that, and the fact that a guy has pictures of such things implies the girlfriend went along with it. "Tragic"? Not all people have to conform to your opinions on proper behavior, you know. You've never thought "I wish she wouldn't bother me with this while I'm trying to play this game", then good for you. You are clearly the epitome of human male evolution. All hail and all that.

I’m not laughing at their ads because it’s a personal offense. Why is it personal?  Why wouldn’t it be?

I think you just illustrated the problem I have with this kind of conflict better than I ever could have.

I’m the target of that ad, aren’t I?  I’m the one they want to buy their products.  So, doesn’t that suggest somehow that they must have tailored that ad for me?  So, doesn’t that suggest that they think I’m a self-righteous male-supremist prick who wouldn’t know a meaningful relationship if it bit me on the ass?  I sense some friction!

Just like this ad suggests that you're a furry, deceitful caffeine-addicted canine? They're not suggesting you're a sandwich-stealing thief, they just want you to buy Pepsi. And you're probably more likely to do it, because you saw their ad and thought it was funny. So why exactly is it so offensive when you replace a trick-filmed dog with a caricature of John Doe? Or do you perhaps think it's made to accurately depict their expected customer? Reality check please.

Personally I'd rather think they were trying to save themselves some trouble by removing all the uptight people from the list of potential future customers. "We'd hate to get people who'd get offended by something like this calling our tech support later on." I pity Sony for thinking people would have a sense of humor instead of trying to find insults in everything. I have in my days seen quite a number of ads featuring stupid men, are you suggesting I should be offended by those as well because they suggest that I am stupid?

Hark!  For me to consider their ad a direct insult to my character and intelligence must mean I am too sensitive!  After all, I’ve never had a problem with Nintendo’s ads or Microsoft’s ads, even though I don’t even like Microsoft, so of course it’s my own sensitivity that would cause an issue out of the blue where none had been before.
And yet, millions of others noticed this same level of offense and one guy even found it worthy of mentioning in an article.

And just how does the fact that "millions" of others were offended weaken my point that people are too easily offended?

Also I don't know why you start naming company names as counter-examples. I don't believe I ever bothered with the source of the ad in my post, nor does it matter.

if you shun this joke and claim "I would never treat my girlfriend like that", you're probably either a) lying

Well, obviously not in my case.

Well, obviously not.

or b) haven't been in a long-term relationship.

Again, I’m not sure why this is relevant.  Are you actually suggesting that all long-term relationships involving male gamers must somehow, at some point, include a stage where the male posts stickers of his girlfriend’s naughty bits on his day-to-day tools?  I’ll give you grace in the issue of “pointless” questions, only because there usually is some point where both sides have some tussle and feel the other side’s questions/issues are pointless.  But I’m not sure why encouraging them to “escape” from it is more responsible than encouraging them to work it out.

Wake-up call. Most long-term relationships involving anyone at all sooner or later involves a stage where one party would rather do something else than cater to the other party. This is not something I'm "suggesting". Of course not yours. Just, you know, lesser folk's. And also yes, a lot of relationships are quite sexually active, and giving your partner something erotic to keep with him/her while you're apart can be an effective way to keep it that way. The fact that you would never do something like that is irrelevant. If you're really that concerned about how companies hypothetically think of you based on the literal content of their ads, then at least be thankful they regard you as someone competent enough to be able to get a girlfriend. That's actually quite a compliment, considering the average gamer.

There are extremely few "perfect matches" out there, live with it.

Oh, I certainly live with it.  I just don’t try to turn it into a comical situation to extort money from people.

Ah yes, "extorting" people. Good one.

Bet you if the ad had featured women using PSPs in similar, slightly sexist ways, there wouldn't be a beep worth of complaints

Again, not the issue.
#1: No, I wouldn’t care if people attacked me in the same way.  Why?  Because I myself can handle it.  I decided on my own to simply ignore it.  Others may feel bad for me, just as I would feel bad for them being attacked, but because I can handle my own attacks means I am a hypocrite?
#2: That’s not the issue; my anger doesn’t stem from them attacking one group or another.  It stems from them assuming I am clueless to the concept of a meaningful relationship, then trying to put a happy spin on that to get into my wallet.

On the contrary, criticism founded merely in the target of the "attack" is quite an issue indeed, closely related to the "is this offensive or not" issue. I'm sorry if my debating several aspects of the topic in the same post confused you.
#1: It's very good that you can handle it, you are obviously a very mature and sensible person. So why is it you so obviously cannot handle the current situation?
#2: I see no difference; you're just flipping the conflict from the larger "men offending women" to "sony ad offending men". Or more specifically, your anger stems because you perceive it as an attack on you. Is your self-confidence and self-image so fragile that you cannot even handle one ad possibly being based on some company's marketing executive's possible view that if taken to the extreme would imply that "men are clueless to the concept of a meaningful relationship"? I mean I think the "offensive to women" issue is extreme already, but your issue seems downright theoretical by comparison.

Yes, I used my girlfriend (when I have one) as an example to relate to the situation, but the issue here is personal.  It isn’t about the attacks they made to them, it’s about the ways they offended me.

To be perfectly honest, did I even mention your name in my last post, Mr. Clean Slate? You happened to make a very good example of people overreacting over small things, which is something I see all the time in the feminism camp (who are riled up about this very ad too, imagine that). But fine, you feel that I was referring to you specifically, I might as well have. Most of the arguments are identical, with the only small change being that instead of being insulted by the slightly sexist tone against women in the ad, you're insulted that that somehow implies that you're sexist. Did I miss anything? And how does that negate my issues against ultra-sensitive people intensely allergic to anything not politically correct? I'm still trying to figure out whether you're writing this because you're actually upset at being considered "sexist", or whether you just appreciate the chance to assert that you are of course better than everyone else.


Signing off; I'm getting too old for this.

 

[zero88]

Oh yeah, L. Spiro:

(...)You are Sony’s perfect “chump”.
They have you in their pocket so badly you can’t even see how bad it is.

You say that like it's a bad thing :wink:

 

[L. Spiro]

Oh-kay, you want a long post war, fair enough.

No, actually I don’t.

This is really just a discussion as far as I am concerned.  But sure, I would do better to use a few smilies so that people don’t think I have an attitude when I post.  
There is an ongoing theme in your reply here that I should address first.

Mr. Clean Slate?

You are clearly the epitome of human male evolution. All hail and all that.

I'm still trying to figure out whether you're writing this because you're actually upset at being considered "sexist", or whether you just appreciate the chance to assert that you are of course better than everyone else.

Incidentally, I can’t tell if you’re writing because you’re actually upset over the issue or if it’s because you have some pent-up personal rage against me.

You actually think I think I am better than other people, huh?
Here we’re having quite the misunderstanding.  You’ve made a connection between me feeling that my character has been offended and the idea that that must imply that I must be looking down on others, because, after all, I’m offended at the thought of having my character compared with theirs, right?
Oh no, don’t think I am so naive as to presume your notion that I must feel superior is something completely new starting with this topic, but at least for now I’d like to just stick with the situation at hand.
Here is how it really is.
All people, myself and you included, have certain outlooks on all other various types of people.  There are some kinds of people you don’t like, and some you do.  At this point, no one is superior just for having these outlooks.
Now, does it cross that line when you dislike a group so much that you are offended at having your character associated with theirs?  Well, we’re dancing at the border, but crossing the line depends on a few other factors.
Do I distance myself from those people at all costs?  No.  Many of them are my friends.
Do I treat them differently from how I would treat others?  Not at first; I treat everyone exactly the same at first.  Whether they turn out to be cool or duds is up to them, and not some preconceived notion I use to characterize their social class.
Make no mistake—I group people together using generic subcultures, as all people do, but that has nothing to do with my respect for individual people.

So why would I get offended at being compared to this group of people?
Well, that’s exactly it, don’t you think?
#1: I wasn’t compared to an individual person.  I was assumed to be in a group, and, naturally, that musters my feelings for that group as a whole, rather than any respected individuals from that group I may know.
#5: Extra offense because they assumed to know me as being that type.  All I did was play video games, and suddenly I am in a completely different social class.  Ah, good going Sony.  Of course, once you start playing video games, you have nothing but sex on the brain.  Oh yeah, I should laugh at that.

Just like this ad suggests that you're a furry, deceitful caffeine-addicted canine?

Reality check please.

Okay.  Firstly, that ad makes no attempt to assert that I myself am the dog.  If you wanted to summarize that ad with words, it would go something along the lines of, “Pepsi is so good, even dogs like it!”.  How does my character fit into this picture?
Secondly, if someone had a dog and he or she tried hard to teach that dog the sturdy values of a good diet, on top of honesty enough not to steal, could that person be offended at the suggestion that Pepsi wants to corrupt his or her dog’s values, and if so, would I presume to have the right to say whether or not that person is justified by being offended?
If I understand enough to know that different people were raised in different places, with different values and different standards of life, who would I be to go around dictating what constitutes over-sensitivity?
This is probably one of those times where I should be using those smilie thingies to indicate it’s just a civil discussion to me.
—> <— This is the smilie I have used to ensure that all can see I have no attitude (arg, these things are so not-my-style ).
Thirdly,

I believe that the thing many people - including me - have issues with, is how these ads are apparently aimed at the lowest common denominator.

So why is it you so obviously cannot handle the current situation?

Again, there seems to be a misunderstanding.
This topic (though inadvertently), became a topic where it was relevant to discuss our viewpoints on Sony’s attitude.
I handle my offense by simply getting over it and moving on with my day.  It’s not exactly as if I go around all day enraged at being offended and telling people about my rage, and/or actively boycotting their product, gathering rallies, etc.
But because I expressed my views, and explained my reasons for being offended, in what I had considered to be a calm and civil manner, in a topic where it was relevant to actually discuss it, it must mean I can’t handle it, huh?

To be perfectly honest, did I even mention your name in my last post, Mr. Clean Slate?

To be honest, I somehow expected this reply somewhere in your post when I posted last night.  I expected it at the beginning though, since wouldn’t think you would go all out writing an essay to crunch my character and then at the end say, “Oh, and my previous post might not have been directed towards you in the first place.”
So, last night, I had gathered all my reasons to explain why I would think your post was directed towards me.  I thought about how I would mention that using my numbering system as a platform for your post wouldn’t be the most intuitive way not to direct your post towards me, and I thought about how no one else really showed signs of sensitivity, etc.
But now I’m not so sure that’s needed when you yourself acknowledge that most of the arguments are identical, so who is to know?
I’m not going to apologize for thinking your post was directed towards me when everyone on the board can see how fine the line is.
People who can’t take a joke?  You easily could mean me.  Especially since I’ve known for a long time how you really feel about me.
Explaining why the joke is funny because it’s true?  Well, I seem to have been the main one attacking the humor of the joke.  The guy who wrote the article simply mentions it in passing.
Discussing respect towards women?  Again, who made a strong point about this besides me?
I would never treat my girlfriend like that, etc.  Wait, aren’t you now using the exact context of my post?  And now you dare to try to pose a question as to whether I should have considered myself the target of your post?  And you’re using that uncertainty as leverage for calling me “an example of people over-reacting to simple things”?


Besides, it may not have come across that way, but my post was entirely calm and collected.
I wasn’t insulted by your post either way, whether it was directed towards me or not.
And being the target of your post wasn’t an issue either way.
I wanted to explain my viewpoint, here, where it is appropriate to do so.  I wanted to clear up any confusion, in case there was any.  I’m not a tree-hugging feminist.  Now you know.
If your post wasn’t directed towards me at all, great.  Then I didn’t need to spend so much time clarifying my viewpoint, so ignore it, yeah?
The first words I wrote when I typed my post were, “It isn’t really relevant for us to discuss this since we aren’t on the same page.”
My only mistake was erasing that in favor of actually explaining why we aren’t on the same page, while not explicitly stating it.

But that’s all for the better, right?  Because now everyone knows you view me as nothing more than some elitist prick with but the soul purpose of showing off how superior I am over everyone else.
Good to get the out instead of keeping it pent up, right?
And don’t worry; I’m not offended, because I’m not one much for being over-sensitive, you know?  

You say that like it's a bad thing

If it makes you happy, then that’s all that really matters.


L. Spiro

 

[Sad Jari]

You actually think I think I am better than other people, huh?

After reading your posts for few years, it would require an incredible leap of faith to think anything else. :|

Make no mistake—I group people together using generic subcultures, as all people do, but that has nothing to do with my respect for individual people.

So, why take offense when someone grouped you? Let the Stone cast the first innocent, or something.

So why would I get offended at being compared to this group of people?
Well, that’s exactly it, don’t you think?
#1: I wasn’t compared to an individual person.  I was assumed to be in a group, and, naturally, that musters my feelings for that group as a whole, rather than any respected individuals from that group I may know.

You know, you are part of a group. Part of several, even. You are male - at least you claim to be, you are in the 20 - 30 age group, you live in a certain place, you do certain work... you are and will be categorized for the rest of your life. By anyone and everyone.

You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

  --Tyler Durden.

...for once the movies were right.

#5: Extra offense because they assumed to know me as being that type.  All I did was play video games, and suddenly I am in a completely different social class.  Ah, good going Sony.  Of course, once you start playing video games, you have nothing but sex on the brain.  Oh yeah, I should laugh at that.

Social class...? Is this some kind of a "I'm not part of the unwashed masses, ewwww!"-thing?

How did they assume to know? I thought that the ads were aimed at certain demographic, and... well, that's about it. I really can't see why their marketing department would have assumed that the ads would have appealed to everyone in that demographic, or anything about you personally for that matter.

Besides, it may not have come across that way, but my post was entirely calm and collected.
I wasn’t insulted by your post either way, whether it was directed towards me or not.

Don't you think that these are situations where you should let actions speak, instead of words?

 

[L. Spiro]

After reading your posts for few years, it would require an incredible leap of faith to think anything else.

As I said, I’m not so naive as to presume this idea just stemmed from this topic.
Actually this is one thing I find quite interesting, being extremely phsycho-analytical.  I am quite fascinated to see how different groups of people view the same individual.
My school: “L. Spiro?  Yeah, people say he’s smart, but all we’ve ever seen is a clown.  If he’s intelligent, it’s wasted.  All he does is play games and act like a moron.  I’d be surprised if he thought he was better than anyone at anything.”
My office: “He gets his work done on time, but he’s a little weird.  Professionally there is no problem—he helps around the office and makes everyone have fun.  But he is a weirdo, and most of the time he seems to be concentrating on how to fit in with others rather than trying to act better than anyone.  I think if he ever acts bigger than another person it’s really a matter of overcompensation from trying to fit in—everyone thinks he’s a clown, nothing but jokes, and sometimes he just wants to show them there’s something more there.”

Take a few examples from various online boards, insert them here, you get the idea.  The primary running theme in those is that people think I am a clown.
And yet, here, this board has no idea of all that.
Clown?  L. Spiro??  Pfft, that guy never tells a joke, types and acts like a robot, and has a superiority complex from here to high heaven.

So you want to know the truth?
I’m tired of going everywhere and leaving a trail of jokes and moronic behavior, leaving people with the perception of me being a clown—an idiot.
For once in my life it might feel good to actually be taken seriously.
It might blow your minds to know this, but almost everywhere else I go, in real-life and online, all I do is tell jokes, smile, laugh, have fun, and do whatever I can to make sure everyone else is having a good time.

* Rejoined channel #TribalWar
* Topic is 'Tribalwar.com: <L-Spiro> I had a dream where I was Vin Diesel and suddenly Yoda came and we had to navigate through a Mario level to get to Data from Star Trek. We let the princess die because it was “fate”. After we got to Data, I turned into a girl.'
* Set by PJ on Mon Jun 19 17:24:43

I told #TribalWar about my dream thinking some of them might get a little chuckle.  They posted it as the topic, so now everyone who joins the room is going to see that.
Well, somehow I don’t see myself getting a lot of respect from this, but that’s not the point.  Yeah, people are going to hold to the idea that I am an idiot, but all that matters to me is, “Did they at least get a little laugh?”.

So the truth is, I’m in my element when I’m acting like a clown, but here, where I tried to show—and get—a little respect, no, I’m not really in my element.  I’m not trying to sound smarter or tougher, but I’m also not sure about how to gain/keep the image of a normal respected intelligent individual.
Some things I say seem to go over the border, but quite frankly I just can’t help it because I’m not used to dancing on this border.  I’m struggling quite hard to find just that zone, where there’s respect but not ego.

And it would help if I would use smilies.   :-o
Don’t even try to deny how much of a difference that makes between arrogance and a joking stab.

So, why take offense when someone grouped you? Let the Stone cast the first innocent, or something.

You missed the point.
I group people, thus I don’t take offense when I am grouped.
But what do I do with my grouping?  Do I treat people differently because I have grouped them?  What if I grouped them incorrectly?
The point is, how do you act towards someone after you’ve grouped him or her?  Do you allow your preconceived image get in the way, or do you treat them as you would anyone else and let them show you if they are cool or not?
Grouping people doesn’t have an indication one way or the other as far as I am concerned—it’s when you think you know someone because of how you grouped him or her that bothers me.
For example, I didn’t look over my target audience, decide I know them based off how I grouped them, then spend thousands of dollars on a commercial that I was sure they would like, because, after all, they are in that group, aren’t they? So they must be porn-hungry sex addicts, of course!

You know, you are part of a group.

Read above.

How did they assume to know? I thought that the ads were aimed at certain demographic

Ads by game companies often include me within the target audience.  Why wouldn’t they?  Demographic or not, I am part of where they are aiming.
So, how did they assume to know me?
Did they spend a lot of money making a commercial for me or not?
Yes, yes they did.


This isn’t about a new Tony Hawk game that comes with an ad demonstrating “all the cool new move(s).”
I’m not a skater, so am I offended?  No.  Why not?
#1: Nothing particularly wrong with being a skater—quite a general range of people there.
#2: The game is about skating, and it is meant for people who like skating, which isn’t me.  So their ad really wasn’t meant for me—I’m not a potential customer for that product.

But a PlayStation Portable with an ad that demonstrates all the cool new porn I can get?
#1: Is there something wrong with being a porn-hungry freak?  Well, that’s so controversial, isn’t it best to leave this up to the person?  If a person thinks this is okay, fine, and if a person thinks this is offensive, fine.  Why are you questioning whether someone would get offended at this?
#2: A PlayStation Portable isn’t geared towards sports I don’t like.  It isn’t for people who cook or do construction work.  It’s for people who game, and that’s me.


But then again, I could be wrong.  Apparently the PlayStation Portable isn’t just for gamers in general, but specifically for gamers who like porn and sex.
And that isn’t me.
So I’m no longer a potential customer for Sony game products.

As far as I was concerned, that is where it ended.
I didn’t—and still don’t—want to have a long drawn-out discussion over this.
I posted a bit of my views on the subject, and I wanted it to end there.
I was a little misunderstood so I clarified.
Then I thought I was misunderstood more so I clarified more.

Really, there was never a problem here.  Their ads alienated me from their product, and as far as I was concerned that was the end of it.
What is the big deal??


L. Spiro

 

[zero88]

“L. Spiro?  Yeah, people say he’s smart, but all we’ve ever seen is a clown.  If he’s intelligent, it’s wasted.  All he does is play games and act like a moron.  I’d be surprised if he thought he was better than anyone at anything.”

Do they really call you L. Spiro? Unless that happened to be your real name and making that little joke not so much of a joke...

But seriously, I didn't mean to piss you off or offend you in any other way if I did in my earlier posts. In all honesty, I really meant to post in a more light-hearted, joking kind of way, because reading how you say you act in real life sounds a lot like me; I'm hardly ever serious. That is, to my friends and whatnot.

But I try to be as good as can be on forums and such, since, aside from the conversations every now and then, I'm pretty much a complete stranger to you guys, and I'm normally courteous and what have you to people I don't know. Of course, all seriousness and no play makes for a very dull user, so...

 

[L. Spiro]

They use my real name.  I’m just not comfortable using it so I put in L. Spiro.

And, no, you didn’t offend me.
No one here did.  I just wanted to express why I would be offended if I had ever seen those ads.
I talk as if I have actually been offended, but for me that just a means of giving perspective.
And in this case I feel it is fine, because I know I would have been offended if I did see the ads, so I didn’t feel a need to make a clarification there.


L. Spiro

 

[Sad Jari]

Very much off-topic by now, but just my two cents; I think that you worry way too much about how other people see you. Save for a very few situations (job interviews...) it makes no, or extremely little difference.

I’m tired of going everywhere and leaving a trail of jokes and moronic behavior, leaving people with the perception of me being a clown—an idiot.

Tsk tsk, good clown is hardly an idiot, in fact many people are not smart, witty or social enough to be good clowns. Of course there's the other kind of clown, but there's an important difference; this kind of clown makes people laugh by accident, and always at him.

So the truth is, I’m in my element when I’m acting like a clown, but here, where I tried to show—and get—a little respect, no, I’m not really in my element.  I’m not trying to sound smarter or tougher, but I’m also not sure about how to gain/keep the image of a normal respected intelligent individual.

To quote Yoda, the little green one: there is no try. Although not in the sense he meant, this time.

Don't try to get respect. It will come to you, if you deserve it. Actively seeking for it is one of the best ways to not get it, and a possible recipe for a larger disaster.


EDIT: This is totally off-topic, and rather far even from the previously off-topicky part, but Spiro's comment about treating women as equals and respecting them made me remember this. It shouldn't be taken as an absolute truth that applies to all women, either. It's just to show that women are not some innocent, fragile creatures that will take offense at anything and everything, and always expect you to treat them as such.

 

[mirex]

I'll be little off from flow of your posts but my 2 cents to the ads

First, I haven't seen the adds mentioned ... but:
Its just an add you say ... Yes it is a joke for us. But there are also minors which still cannot choose if this add is correct or not, because they just still don't know what are they talking about (they're talking about girlie stuff), but if they see the add frequently enough they could be thinking that this is normal, this is a normal behaviour, and I should be behaving in a similair way probably. It can alter their way of seeing girls and life as a whole.
Lots of kids get liking the McDonalds and other similair companies even before they tasted their food, just from the TV ad's.

 

[Sad Jari]

If there wasn't a thing called Internet, home to all the pr0n in the world and promised land of age limits that nobody enforces, your theory might even have some merit.

But since there is, one ad - or dozen of them - is not going to make any difference.

 

[zero88]

Its just an add you say ... Yes it is a joke for us. But there are also minors which still cannot choose if this add is correct or not, because they just still don't know what are they talking about (they're talking about girlie stuff), but if they see the add frequently enough they could be thinking that this is normal, this is a normal behaviour, and I should be behaving in a similair way probably. It can alter their way of seeing girls and life as a whole.

Believe me, if this relatively harmless ad didn't get them, something else will. It's just the world we live in these days.

And like Jari said - all it takes is one Google search, really. I've put in pretty harmless words into the Google search engine and got some graphic results. Granted, you have the filter, but I've always had to activate it to filter out all bad content; if the minors in question are so impressionable to think that the world of women is equivalent to the world or pornography, then I'm going to assume they don't know how to activate that filter; or, if they could, if they would at all  . Curiosity killed the cat...

Or in this case, the innocence and well-being of a minor, I guess.