Free Speech in the UK

[mongrel]

The fact that still, after all this time, you don't recognize the distinction between the code and the ruling is comical. You are free to persist in your promotion of the absurd - and patently activist - notion that bland depictions of motherhood are either "harmful" or "widely offensive". If conceptualizing me as a "regressive" daemon enables you to justify your position then so be it - you have every right to delude yourself.

You forget the depiction in itself doesn't break the code, it's the context, it is what's shown with it.

Why is the ruling absurd? Mongrel does not have to conceptualise your views as regressive, they are.The very idea that people with an interest in maintaining or promoting womens equality should have no say in a public consultation affecting women is bonkers. Perhaps the ladies should stay at home whilst their husbands deal with white male genocide or whatever bothers transatlantic edgelords at this point in time.

Aexodus is also correct that academic sociology has become increasingly untrustworthy on account of its rapid politicization over recent decades. Sources on this were provided above.

Is the advertising industry politicised too? Even if it was they are entitled to contribute to a public consultation in a free country.

The fact is that academic sociology is utterly compromised, with most in the field wanting to push an agenda rather than search for empirical truth.

That's your view as a layman, one you may be entitled to. But as for the views of business, do they not count? Or alternatively are we going the whole Trump American style and suggest that anyone not adorning a MAGA hat is some kind of leeberull who should be shot. Enough of this reeeing , look at the title of the thread. These academics, or indeed advertising professionals who seem to broadly support the rules, are entitled to free speech are they not?

[Cope]

You forget the depiction in itself doesn't break the code, it's the context, it is what's shown with it.

Why is the ruling absurd? Mongrel does not have to conceptualise your views as regressive, they are.The very idea that people with an interest in maintaining or promoting womens equality should have no say in a public consultation affecting women is bonkers. Perhaps the ladies should stay at home whilst their husbands deal with white male genocide or whatever bothers transatlantic edgelords at this point in time.

1. Showing a mother with a pram - irrespective of whether she appear in a segment which shows an astronaut - is not "harmful" nor is it "widely offensive". The decision made by the ASA is nothing more than embarrassing hand-wringing idiocy.

2. I did not say that anyone should be prevented from having a "say" in public consultations: what I said was that a) due to the sample size and nature of the respondents the consultation lacked any significant credibility and b) the consultation wasn't relevant anyway because the feedback related to the development of the code and not to the manner in which the ASA subsequently interpreted that code.

3. No one cares about your irrelevant paranoia over genocide.

Is the advertising industry politicised too? Even if it was they are entitled to contribute to a public consultation in a free country.

No one has said that they aren't entitled to contribute to a public consultation. Try paying attention.

[Aexodus]

Depicting a sleeping baby and its mum that isn’t woken up by the quiet engine of the car isn’t harmful. Depicting a baby beingg accompanied by a mum isn’t harmful.

[Cope]

Depicting a sleeping baby and its mum that isn’t woken up by the quiet engine of the car isn’t harmful. Depicting a baby beingg accompanied by a mum isn’t harmful.

Shut up bigot!

[mongrel]

Depicting a sleeping baby and its mum that isn’t woken up by the quiet engine of the car isn’t harmful. Depicting a baby beingg accompanied by a mum isn’t harmful.

Read the damned code. That image by itself is not a breach of the code. Here's an excercise, read the findings (see above) and comment on that rather than reeeeing.

1. Showing a mother with a pram - irrespective of whether she appear in a segment which shows an astronaut - is not "harmful" nor is it "widely offensive". The decision made by the ASA is nothing more than embarrassing hand-wringing idiocy. .

As above. Some people clearly have no grasp of how regulation works.

I did not say that anyone should be prevented from having a "say" in public consultations: what I said was that a) due to the sample size and nature of the respondents the consultation lacked any significant credibility

No that is not the message you are giving out, it's reeeee how darez feminazis tell us (men) what to do, even in the event that the wider advertising industry is doing likewise. Remember, you didn't even know of the existence of the consultation when you made your initial comment, so you could not have possibly intended to comment on 'sample size'.

Reeeeeee no one cares

I guess that is why , in Trumpland, people are free to impose their political views by killing dozens of people.

Your avatar looks cluttered. I recommend removing the cross and the US flag and replacing them with the flag of the Gilead Republic.Sorted.

No one has said that they aren't entitled to contribute to a public consultation.

So why not be critical of everyone else who wanted the same powers or wanted stricter regulations? Your sole focus was on these so-called 'social justice activists'. Makes no sense unless the intent was to scream culture war. Lets face it you tried to call a lazy-arse cheap shot and failed to take into account that in the UK, the reasons for doing anything are recorded.

[Cope]

As above. Some people clearly have no grasp of how regulation works.

Some people - namely those who think that depictions of motherhood are "harmful" - clearly have no gasp on reality, let alone the purpose of regulation.

No that is not the message you are giving out, it's reeeee how darez feminazis tell us (men) what to do, even in the event that the wider advertising industry is doing likewise.

As repeatedly shown, this position is a straw man of your own making; the more often you make it the more you expose your own desperation.

Remember, you didn't even know of the existence of the consultation when you made your initial comment, so you could not have possibly intended to comment on 'sample size'.

I didn't need to know about the finery of the consultation in advance to recognize the regulator's self-evident lunacy in ruling that bland depictions of motherhood were "offensive" or "harmful". As shown above, waving the response evaluation in my face proves nothing because a) it lacked any significant credibility and b) the feedback related to the development of the code and not to the manner in which the ASA subsequently interpreted that code.

I guess that is why , in Trumpland, people are free to impose their political views by killing dozens of people.

Have you officially lost the plot? The El Paso terrorist was arrested and will either be incarcerated for life or executed. Claiming that people "are free to impose their political views by killing dozens of people" and spamming your paranoia about "genocide" in a conversation about English broadcasting regulation is not only off topic, its asinine drivel.

Your avatar looks cluttered. I recommend removing the cross and the US flag and replacing them with the flag of the Gilead Republic.Sorted.

More off-topic drivel.

So why not be critical of everyone else who wanted the same powers or wanted stricter regulations?

1. This has got nothing to do with your ridiculous claim that I had asserted that the CAP wasn't "entitled" to a public consultation.

2. I couldn't care less who's making the argument: it is laughably foolish for anyone to suggest that banning bland depictions of motherhood is somehow an appropriate position.

Your sole focus was on these so-called 'social justice activists'. Makes no sense unless the intent was to scream culture war. Lets face it you tried to call a lazy-arse cheap shot and failed to take into account that in the UK, the reasons for doing anything are recorded.

The "recorded reasons" for the ASA's decision are entirely consistent with the argument that they were heavily influenced by social justice activism. When this was exposed via the academia (which you had initially tried to argue had no bearing whatsoever) you simply ignored the evidence and started using the consultation as crutch. When the consultation was shown as lacking credibility and relevance you simply collapsed back onto your "SJW" straw man.

You must do better than this.

[mongrel]

Some people - namely those who think that depictions of motherhood are "harmful" - clearly have no gasp on reality, let alone the purpose of regulation.

I told you both to read the ruling and the code properly. I guess ideology prevented you friom doing that simple task.

Anyhow, this Pampers advert followed the advert in question. It is awash with scenes of motherhood and women in a stereotypical role (midwife) . The ad campaign was a successful one. Your assertion that the regulations rule out depictions of motherhood is wrong.


https://www.facebook.com/PampersUKIr...7999414758821/

Other baby products also appear on my television, so the very assertion that depictions of motherhood are 'banned' cannot be based on truth.

As repeatedly shown, this position is a straw man of your own making; the more often you make it the more you expose your own desperation.

The bare text of your initial rant refers to no other party other than these 'progessssive' elitists of yours. There is no denying it, its in black and white. There is no way that you had the general public or industry in mind, so stop misleading the forum.

I didn't need to know about the finery of the consultation in advance to recognize the regulator's self-evident lunacy in ruling that bland depictions of motherhood were "offensive" or "harmful". As shown above, waving the response evaluation in my face proves nothing because a) it lacked any significant credibility and b) the feedback related to the development of the code and not to the manner in which the ASA subsequently interpreted that code.

Yes one does or one misses things like context. Volkswagen's only sin was unconcious bias. Yours is utterly concious. Also I have now offered visual proof that depictions of motherhood are not considered harmful by themselves, so your self-imposed ignorance isn't helping you.

Have you officially lost the plot? The El Paso terrorist was arrested and will either be incarcerated for life or executed. Claiming that people "are free to impose their political views by killing dozens of people" and spamming your paranoia about "genocide" in a conversation about English broadcasting regulation is not only off topic, its asinine drivel.

It was you who introduced the point remember? You seemed to be concerned that I chastised one of those people in the Brexit thread, an odd position to take. And creepy given that you took the time to search for a conversation between me and Basil for no reason.

More off-topic drivel.

I think it would suit you, to be fair. A future where women have no say.


Here's a sexy picture for your collection.

1. This has got nothing to do with your ridiculous claim that I had asserted that the CAP wasn't "entitled" to a public consultation.

2. I couldn't care less who's making the argument: it is laughably foolish for anyone to suggest that banning bland depictions of motherhood is somehow an appropriate position.

That is a lie. You have consistently been hostile to one singular segment of the ASA/CAP staker holder base, those involved in gender studies or who have an interest in the rights or wellbeing of women. There are other stakeholders who wanted the regulations changed, some wanted to go further, yet only the aformentioned gets your bile.On the face of it based on what you have said thus far, it seems that you have an antipathy for those who stsand up for women

On the bland depications of motherhood, I've busted that (see Pampers ad).

The "recorded reasons" for the ASA's decision are entirely consistent with the argument that they were heavily influenced by social justice activism.When this was exposed via the academia (which you had initially tried to argue had no bearing whatsoever) you simply ignored the evidence and started using the consultation as crutch. When the consultation was shown as lacking credibility and relevance you simply collapsed back onto your "SJW" straw man.

No, the recorded reasons are based on the published code , which was subject to public consultation.The only relevant evidence is that recorded in the response document and that referred to other ASA/CAP literature, as it is that that was considered. It's a bummer when bureaucrats have to account for their thinking.

You must do better than this.

I think I have done enough to destroy the last vestages of your argument. With the Pampers video for all to see all you have left to go on is 'reeeeeee social justice' which is not a viable position, because you would have to accuse the whole advertising profession as being feminazis. Good luck with that.

[Cope]

I told you both to read the ruling and the code properly. I guess ideology prevented you friom doing that simple task.

I have read both the ruling and the code. The latter was rationalized to an acceptable extent; the former is, as I've stated, hand-wringing idiocy.

Anyhow, this Pampers advert followed the advert in question. It is awash with scenes of motherhood and women in a stereotypical role (midwife) . The ad campaign was a successful one. Your assertion that the regulations rule out depictions of motherhood is wrong.

We're talking about one specific case; the extent of the ASA's regulatory consistency isn't what is under examination here.

https://www.facebook.com/PampersUKIr...7999414758821/

Other baby products also appear on my television, so the very assertion that depictions of motherhood are 'banned' cannot be based on truth.

Again, we're talking about one specific case.

The bare text of your initial rant refers to no other party other than these 'progessssive' elitists of yours. There is no denying it, its in black and white. There is no way that you had the general public or industry in mind, so stop misleading the forum.

My highlighting the way in which progressive activism has penetrated English institutions (of which the ASA ruling is a classic example) has nothing to do with your ridiculous "feminazi" drivel. As repeatedly shown, that is a straw man of your own making.

Yes one does or one misses things like context. Volkswagen's only sin was unconcious bias. Yours is utterly concious. Also I have now offered visual proof that depictions of motherhood are not considered harmful by themselves, so your self-imposed ignorance isn't helping you.

We're talking about the lunacy of one specific case in which a bland depiction of motherhood was determined to be "harmful". Do try to keep up.

It was you who introduced the point remember? You seemed to be concerned that I chastised one of those people in the Brexit thread, an odd position to take. And creepy given that you took the time to search for a conversation between me and Basil for no reason.

No one cares about your genocide paranoia. Stay on topic.

I think it would suit you, to be fair. A future where women have no say.

Yes because opposing an overzealous decision by an advertising regulator is synonymous with having an attitude toward women that would rival Henry VIII's. The extent of your ridiculous hysteria expands exponentially.

Here's a sexy picture for your collection.

Off-topic drivel.

That is a lie. You have consistently been hostile to one singular segment of the ASA/CAP staker holder base, those involved in gender studies or who have an interest in the rights or wellbeing of women. There are other stakeholders who wanted the regulations changed, some wanted to go further, yet only the aformentioned gets your bile.On the face of it based on what you have said thus far, it seems that you have an antipathy for those who stsand up for women

Spare me your laughable pretense that you have an ethical monopoly on anything let alone "the wellbeing of women". We can do without these humdrum appeals to moral supremacy.

On the bland depications of motherhood, I've busted that (see Pampers ad).

No you haven't.

No, the recorded reasons are based on the published code , which was subject to public consultation.The only relevant evidence is that recorded in the response document and that referred to other ASA/CAP literature, as it is that that was considered. It's a bummer when bureaucrats have to account for their thinking.

The code prohibits depictions of gender stereotypes which are harmful or widely offensive; this is what the respondents broadly agreed needed regulating. That the ASA subsequently used the code to determine that generic depictions of motherhood can be "harmful" and/or "widely offensive" is nothing short of zealous idiocy.

I think I have done enough to destroy the last vestages of your argument. With the Pampers video for all to see all you have left to go on is 'reeeeeee social justice' which is not a viable position, because you would have to accuse the whole advertising profession as being feminazis. Good luck with that.

You have done no such thing. All you've achieved, over what must be at least 3 pages, is to argue against your own ridiculous straw man. Congratulations.

[mongrel]

I have read both the ruling and the code.

I doubt it for reasons given below.

We're talking about one specific case; the extent of the ASA's regulatory consistency isn't what is under examination here.

You said and I quote the regulator's self-evident lunacy in ruling that bland depictions of motherhood were "offensive" or "harmful"'
How can that be true if in light of the sucessful Pampers campaign, featuring multiple depictions of motherhood. You don't want to acknowledge the campaign because it fatally undermines hours worth of pointless ranting. The camera overrides your nonsense I'm afraid.

Again, we're talking about one specific case.

You said and I quoute the regulator's self-evident lunacy in ruling that bland depictions of motherhood were "offensive" or "harmful"'

If Britons are seeing multiple depictions of motherhood on TV on a routine basis that can't be true can it?

My highlighting the way in which progressive activism has penetrated English institutions (of which the ASA ruling is a classic example) has nothing to do with your ridiculous "feminazi" drivel. As repeatedly shown, that is a straw man of your own making.

Racist. It's a British quango. Whether it's an institution is arguable. You have still not provided a shred of evidence as to how these people were (ahem) 'penetrated'. We do have sight of their rulings and adverts as they are broadcast to go by, so still not buying it. If your problem is one of principle, that the body should not consider gender stereotyping as harmful, tough titty, Mongrel can't imagine who would suffer any detriment whatsoever apart from incels or keyboard warriors.

We're talking about the lunacy of one specific case in which a bland depiction of motherhood was determined to be "harmful". Do try to keep up.

If Britons are seeing multiple depictions of motherhood on TV on a routine basis that can't be true can it?

We are talking about a pisspoor reeeee 'social justice' argument that couldn't see the bigger picture if it came of its mounts and smacked it on the arse.

No one cares about your genocide paranoia. Stay on topic.

You introduced it to break the not about Mongrel rule.

Yes because opposing an overzealous decision by an advertising regulator is synonymous with having an attitude toward women that would rival Henry VIII's. The extent of your ridiculous hysteria expands exponentially.

You attitude is weird, as I said , whatever one's view of the sociology profession, most sensible people would say not much, Mongrel asserts that treating gender stereotyping as some kind of detriment is odd, bordering on weird. It is not ridiculous to treat women properly.

Off-topic drivel.

You can run but you can't hide. Depictions of motherhood broadcast on UK TV are entirely relevant. This is the point where you realise that you have nothing to offer but whinging. I quote the regulator's self-evident lunacy in ruling that bland depictions of motherhood were "offensive" or "harmful"'

Spare me your laughable pretense that you have an ethical monopoly on anything let alone "the wellbeing of women". We can do without these humdrum appeals to moral supremacy.

So treating women properly is 'moral supremacy' now? Sounding like a proper Aunt Lydia. Under His eye.

No you haven't.

You can't wish away the Pampers ad campaign and other adverts..

The code prohibits depictions of gender stereotypes which are harmful or widely offensive; this is what the respondents broadly agreed needed regulating. That the ASA subsequently used the code to determine that generic depictions of motherhood can be "harmful" and/or "widely offensive" is nothing short of zealous idiocy.

I think if you read it properly, the ASA made the proposals, and asked stakeholders specific questions relating to them, to test opinion.

You have done no such thing.

You can't wish away the Pampers ad campaign and other adverts..

Reeeeeeeeeeeee strawman

Lies. You said and I quote 'English institutions like the ASA from capitulating to social justice activsm.'

[Cope]

I doubt it for reasons given below.

You said and I quote the regulator's self-evident lunacy in ruling that bland depictions of motherhood were "offensive" or "harmful"'

How can that be true if in light of the sucessful Pampers campaign, featuring multiple depictions of motherhood. You don't want to acknowledge the campaign because it fatally undermines hours worth of pointless ranting. The camera overrides your nonsense I'm afraid.

This is a discussion about a specific ASA ruling relating to the Volkswagen Group advertisment; pointing and yelling at other advertisements is just a desperate attempt to shift the goal posts.

You said and I quoute the regulator's self-evident lunacy in ruling that bland depictions of motherhood were "offensive" or "harmful"'

In the context of that particular case and with respect to potential future implications.

If Britons are seeing multiple depictions of motherhood on TV on a routine basis that can't be true can it?

Yes it can - for the reasons repeatedly provided.

Racist.

Off-topic drivel.

It's a British quango. Whether it's an institution is arguable.

You've openly conceded that it was an institution.

You have still not provided a shred of evidence as to how these people were (ahem) 'penetrated'.

Go and re-read the discussion about progressive gender role theory and the academic sources.

We do have sight of their rulings and adverts as they are broadcast to go by, so still not buying it. If your problem is one of principle, that the body should not consider gender stereotyping as harmful, tough titty, Mongrel can't imagine who would suffer any detriment whatsoever apart from incels or keyboard warriors.

That depends on the nature of the stereotype. It is lunacy to believe that bland depictions of motherhood (such as were shown in the Volkswagen Group advert) are "harmful".

If Britons are seeing multiple depictions of motherhood on TV on a routine basis that can't be true can it?

Yes it can - for the reasons repeatedly provided.

We are talking about a pisspoor reeeee 'social justice' argument that couldn't see the bigger picture if it came of its mounts and smacked it on the arse.

My highlighting the way in which progressive activism has penetrated English institutions (of which the ASA ruling is a classic example) has nothing to do with your ridiculous "feminazi" drivel. As repeatedly shown, that is a straw man of your own making.

You introduced it to break the not about Mongrel rule.

No one cares about your obsession with genocide. Stay on topic.

You attitude is weird, as I said , whatever one's view of the sociology profession, most sensible people would say not much, Mongrel asserts that treating gender stereotyping as some kind of detriment is odd, bordering on weird. It is not ridiculous to treat women properly.

Demeaning care-giving and motherhood isn't "treating women properly".

You can run but you can't hide. Depictions of motherhood broadcast on UK TV are entirely relevant. This is the point where you realise that you have nothing to offer but whinging. I quote the regulator's self-evident lunacy in ruling that bland depictions of motherhood were "offensive" or "harmful"'

Posting soft pornography is off-topic drivel; what you've written here isn't a response to that charge. Don't bother quoting me if you're going to make a statement which is utterly unrelated to the quotation.

So treating women properly is 'moral supremacy' now? Sounding like a proper Aunt Lydia. Under His eye.

This is merely a repetition of the attempt to assume moral supremacy. You couldn't care less about anything other than indulging in your imaginary culture war where you fantasize about slaying "regressive" daemons.

You can't wish away the Pampers ad campaign and other adverts..

This is a discussion about a specific ASA ruling relating to the Volkswagen Group advertisment; pointing and yelling at other advertisements is just a desperate attempt to shift the goal posts.

I think if you read it properly, the ASA made the proposals, and asked stakeholders specific questions relating to them, to test opinion.

That has nothing to do with the respondents in the consultation regarding the code amendment.

You can't wish away the Pampers ad campaign and other adverts.

This is a discussion about a specific ASA ruling relating to the Volkswagen Group advertisment; pointing and yelling at other advertisements is just a desperate attempt to shift the goal posts.

Lies. You said and I quote 'English institutions like the ASA from capitulating to social justice activsm.'

As repeatedly shown, social justice activism in real life doesn't conform to your idiotic straw man. Re-read the discussion on the difference between social justice/progressive activism and "SJWs". I seem to remember the first time that I highlighted the distinction you threw a tantrum and accused me off-topic posting

[mongrel]

Must ...stick ...to... the one...advert......SJWs in control.....they are penetrating usss!:

You said you read the material then call the ASA an English regulatory body. Poor show

The OP says 'free speech in the UK, looks like an open debate to me. So I shall ignore your pleadings and reiterate that there are other depictions of 'bland motherhood' that passed ASA scrutiny.' Multiple depictions. There are other ads too. Your focus on this case is because you can't sustain an argument on the merits of your poorly constructed rant in the light of hard evidence, and it doesn't come harder than an ad with multple instances of hardcore motherhood.


You can run, but can't hide from the Pampers ad. Describing Handmaid's Tale cosplay outfits as 'soft pornography' is a bit weird/creepy. Tasteless sure, finding them a turn on are we?

And what are the future implications of the ruling? Ad agencies will have to be more imaginative, that is about all. No member of the public will be harmed, that's for sure, unless they are an incel edglord living in mamma's basement. You have not told the forum what material detriment Mongrel is supposed to incur as a result of the ruling, just giving vague reference to some people being 'penetrated' or something like that.

Who gives a crap about ' progressive gender role theory ' outside teh internet rantings. Those working on such were free to contribute. What matters is what works for industry and it's customers. You have not shown us what detriment people could conceivably suffer if ads have to avoid stereotypes.


It's not in the ASA's remit to 'demean motherhood'. But that's not the issue, it is this. Many people want free speech, but only for men.


Finally if you have been traumatised by the existence of baby ads in the UK being passed entirely unmolested, then this may help.

[95thrifleman]

Of all the adds passed, the obsession on ONE that is blocked and the passion to create a conspiracy theory of SJW around it is telling.

[Cope]

You said you read the material then call the ASA an English regulatory body. Poor show

Oh are we playing semantics because I called an organization which is based out of London English rather than British? Pathetic.

The OP says 'free speech in the UK, looks like an open debate to me. So I shall ignore your pleadings and reiterate that there are other depictions of 'bland motherhood' that passed ASA scrutiny.' Multiple depictions. There are other ads too. Your focus on this case is because you can't sustain an argument on the merits of your poorly constructed rant in the light of hard evidence, and it doesn't come harder than an ad with multple instances of hardcore motherhood.

The entire conversation has been about this specific case. Were it not for this case we wouldn't even be discussing the CAP/ASA at all. Don't waste my time with this tripe.

You can run, but can't hide from the Pampers ad. Describing Handmaid's Tale cosplay outfits as 'soft pornography' is a bit weird/creepy. Tasteless sure, finding them a turn on are we?

Off topic drivel.

And what are the future implications of the ruling? Ad agencies will have to be more imaginative, that is about all. No member of the public will be harmed, that's for sure, unless they are an incel edglord living in mamma's basement.

As repeatedly shown, social justice activism in real life doesn't conform to your idiotic straw man.

You have not told the forum what material detriment Mongrel is supposed to incur as a result of the ruling

So you spent half the thread whining about how this thread isn't about you, yet now you're demanding that I explain how the ruling will affect you personally? Laughable. Utterly laughable.

just giving vague reference to some people being 'penetrated' or something like that.

Off topic drivel.

Who gives a crap about ' progressive gender role theory ' outside teh internet rantings. Those working on such were free to contribute. What matters is what works for industry and it's customers. You have not shown us what detriment people could conceivably suffer if ads have to avoid stereotypes.

This entire discussion is predicated on differing opinions relating to gender roles; it was a central element of the CAP/ASA's thesis. The fact that once again you're incapable of perceiving the world outside of this bizarre "culture war" narrative is comical.

It's not in the ASA's remit to 'demean motherhood'.

Because of course, only people who have a "remit" to demean are capable of demeaning. What asinine gibberish.

But that's not the issue, it is this. Many people want free speech, but only for men.

No, the issue has nothing whatsoever with limiting speech on the basis of gender. More asinine gibberish.

Finally if you have been traumatised by the existence of baby ads in the UK being passed entirely unmolested, then this may help.

Off topic drivel.

[Aexodus]

It’s more the fact that the guidelines ban stereotypes at all which is a little up-tight and prudish.

[95thrifleman]

It’s more the fact that the guidelines ban stereotypes at all which is a little up-tight and prudish.

I'm inclined to agree, our nation has allot of political correctness gone too far but I don't think it's a specific SJW agenda.

[mongrel]

Oh are we playing semantics because I called an organization which is based out of London English rather than British? Pathetic.

London is the capital of the entire kingdom, geography fail. It's not semantics. Scotland has it's own jurisdiction in certain matters, as do Wales and Northern Ireland. You were careless, have the grace to concede that.

Please please please let it be only about this case

No, the evidence literally before the eyes of Britons suggest that women doing what is perceived to be girly things, including motherhood continues to be screened, thus proving your pleas to be so much bollocks. It would take balls of brass to suggest that the UK does not advertise, for example baby products, milk, nappies and so forth. You have been provided with links to two such ads. Now tell us what detriment would anyone possibly suffer from ASA's policy. Your lack of a response suggests that there simply isn't any.

Off topic drivel.

Why do counter-social justice types seem to be such humourless and joyless souls?

Of all the adds passed, the obsession on ONE that is blocked and the passion to create a conspiracy theory of SJW around it is telling.

This concise and excellent point covers 3 or 4 pages of epic-fail's dross quite accurately

It’s more the fact that the guidelines ban stereotypes at all which is a little up-tight and prudish.

I can't post pictures of tits or fanny on TWC. Is GED an SJW? TV has done with stereotypes for years now, hence no Black and White
Minstrel show (Thank Christ).That's progress.

[Cope]

London is the capital of the entire kingdom, geography fail. It's not semantics. Scotland has it's own jurisdiction in certain matters, as do Wales and Northern Ireland. You were careless, have the grace to concede that.

I almost pity you being this desperate to score a point. But if you want to play, let's play.

1. I didn't claim that the ASA was exclusively English; claiming that it is English is a statement of fact which does not preclude it from simultaneously being British.

2. There are clear historic precedents for using the term "England/English" to refer to the United Kingdom/British as a whole.

No, the evidence literally before the eyes of Britons suggest that women doing what is perceived to be girly things, including motherhood continues to be screened, thus proving your pleas to be so much bollocks. It would take balls of brass to suggest that the UK does not advertise, for example baby products, milk, nappies and so forth. You have been provided with links to two such ads.

This is a discussion about a specific ASA ruling relating to the Volkswagen Group advertisment; pointing and yelling at other advertisements is just a desperate attempt to shift the goal posts.

Now tell us what detriment would anyone possibly suffer from ASA's policy. Your lack of a response suggests that there simply isn't any.

The ludicrous argument that motherhood should be treated as some sort of harmful stereotype when depicted alongside other activities contributes to the myth that caregiving is somehow an inferior or undesirable role and that society has an interest in encouraging the reversal of the asymmetry in the number of caregivers who are men vs. the number who are women.

Why do counter-social justice types seem to be such humourless and joyless souls?

Oh you've made me laugh - just not, I think, intentionally.

This concise and excellent point covers 3 or 4 pages of epic-fail's dross quite accurately

You know you've lost the plot when you're taking your cues from 95thRifleman

I can't post pictures of tits or fanny on TWC. Is GED an SJW?

Posting pornography has nothing to do with the ASA's regulations. Your attempts to conflate wildly disparate issues in the hopes of appealing to ridicule are abysmally transparent.

[mongrel]

1. I didn't claim that the ASA was exclusively English; claiming that it is English is a statement of fact which does not preclude it from simultaneously being British.

Yes you did you said it was an English body, which meant it had no jurisdiction outside England.So no not a statement of fact at all.

2. There are clear historic precedents for using the term "England/English" to refer to the United Kingdom/British as a whole.

No there isn't the term England applies only to England, which technically includes Wales, but England & Wales is the usual term. It is racist to suggest that Britain's Celtic peoples are somehow English.

Reee This is a discussion about a specific ASA ruling relating to the Volkswagen Group advertisment; pointing and yelling at other advertisements is just a desperate attempt to shift the goal posts.

No its not, it is a free speech thread, title says so. Read it: Free.......... Speech....... in........... the............ UK. You tried and failed to create a conspiracy about social justice 'penetrating' people and preventing the depictition of motherhood. You failed because the UK still happens to allow ads showing depicftions of motherhood. You are acting like Dr Zaius when he found that taliking doll.Will you now acknowledge that the UK advertises baby products, which obviously must include scenes containing mothers. If you don't, I will presume that from now on you are trolling.

Reeeeeee motherhood

The only ludicrous thing is your wilful ignorance. Your initial point was that 'bland depictions of motherhood' were banned due to social justice penetration or whatever. I have provided visual evidence that such material is not banned containing multiple instances of 'motherhood'.I also provided evidence of a case involving a ballerina alleged to be stereotypical, the complaint was not upheld. So much for SJW penetration.

Just to rub it in here is another ad containing blatant scenes of 'motherhood'. Not looking good for you is it? And no, don't bother begging to the forum that it should be ignored.



And another one with explicit scenes of motherhood, despite your imaginary SJW embargo.




Shocking levels of motherhood here:

You know you've lost the plot when you're taking your cues from 95thRifleman

Now you have to flame him, because flaming me is ineffective.

Posting pornography has nothing to do with the ASA's regulations. Your attempts to conflate wildly disparate issues in the hopes of appealing to ridicule are abysmally transparent.

You seem to to have a thing about porn. I was just demonstrating that apparent 'prudery' has nothing to do with social justice warriors and everything to do with business practice as is the case with this site. Likewise with the ASA's regulations. Again I note you have dodged the question of what detriment people would suffer by banning stereotyping.

[Cope]

Yes you did you said it was an English body, which meant it had no jurisdiction outside England.So no not a statement of fact at all.

No, it doesn't. You don't get to infer meanings which suit your positions. It is quite clearly the case that something can be both English and British.

No there isn't the term England applies only to England, which technically includes Wales, but England & Wales is the usual term. It is racist to suggest that Britain's Celtic peoples are somehow English.

The historical linguistic precedent doesn't care what you think is racist, it's just a reality.

No its not, it is a free speech thread, title says so. Read it: Free.......... Speech....... in........... the............ UK.

We are having a specific conversation about the ASA's within the free speech thread. The points being made were with reference to that decision.

You tried and failed to create a conspiracy about social justice 'penetrating' people and preventing the depictition of motherhood. You failed because the UK still happens to allow ads showing depicftions of motherhood. You are acting like Dr Zaius when he found that taliking doll.Will you now acknowledge that the UK advertises baby products, which obviously must include scenes containing mothers. If you don't, I will presume that from now on you are trolling.

The only ludicrous thing is your wilful ignorance. Your initial point was that 'bland depictions of motherhood' were banned due to social justice penetration or whatever. I have provided visual evidence that such material is not banned containing multiple instances of 'motherhood'.I also provided evidence of a case involving a ballerina alleged to be stereotypical, the complaint was not upheld. So much for SJW penetration.

Just to rub it in here is another ad containing blatant scenes of 'motherhood'. Not looking good for you is it? And no, don't bother begging to the forum that it should be ignored.

And another one with explicit scenes of motherhood, despite your imaginary SJW embargo.

Shocking levels of motherhood here

This is a discussion about a specific ASA ruling relating to the Volkswagen Group advertisment; pointing and yelling at other advertisements is just a desperate attempt to shift the goal posts

Now you have to flame him, because flaming me is ineffective.

Contradicting your attempts to defend the idiocy of the ASA isn't "flaming".

You seem to to have a thing about porn. I was just demonstrating that apparent 'prudery' has nothing to do with social justice warriors and everything to do with business practice as is the case with this site. Likewise with the ASA's regulations. Again I note you have dodged the question of what detriment people would suffer by banning stereotyping.

1. Non of this debate has anything to do with "social justice warriors".

2. If you actually bothered reading my comments rather than vandalizing them and regurgitated the same debunked nonsense ad infinitum, you would have read: "The ludicrous argument that motherhood should be treated as some sort of harmful stereotype when depicted alongside other activities contributes to the myth that caregiving is somehow an inferior or undesirable role and that society has an interest in encouraging the reversal of the asymmetry in the number of caregivers who are men vs. the number who are women. "

[mongrel]

No, it doesn't. You don't get to infer meanings which suit your positions. It is quite clearly the case that something can be both English and British.

What do mean Mongrel doesn't get to decide? The ASA is a UK body, it has to be in order to cover all 4 nations of the UK ffs. Honestly, just say you were wrong.

The historical linguistic precedent doesn't care what you think is racist, it's just a reality.

There is no 'historical linguistic precedent' to call Scots and Irish people 'English'. Your persistence on that point is racist.

We are having a specific conversation about the ASA's within the free speech thread. The points being made were with reference to that decision.


This is a discussion about a specific ASA ruling relating to the Volkswagen Group advertisment; pointing and yelling at other advertisements is just a desperate attempt to shift the goal posts

No we are not, Mongrel is taking the piss out of your SJW jibe, it is the wee dog criticising your post, so take that criticism and like it, as one should.

Contradicting your attempts to defend the idiocy of the ASA isn't "flaming".

95ths post is fair comment, you have been obssessed with this SJW theory despite the weight of visual evidence provided.

Non of this debate has anything to do with "social justice warriors".

You mentioned penetrating social justice activists, same thing. Should you provide the same slippery excuse, Mongrel says that the difference between SJW and social justice activists is so small as to be meaningless.

2. If you actually bothered reading my reeeeeeeees

Your comments are proven worthless , Mongrel provided two videos where motherhood was shown alongside other activities which meet code criteria. Mongrel also provided two ads for baby products with multiple mothers, one with a few passive looking men, as we tend to be during childbirth, and one with no men whatsoever. This is all in your head, I'm afraid. The camera doesn't lie.


Mongrel notes that yet again the question about detriment is dodged.