Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Delano

Queen Bey and empowerment

Recommended Posts

@Cynique, I guess the basis of our disagreement is your statement: 

 

"People are not as naive about this as you seem to think.  They just don't care. They want enjoyment out of life..."

 

I know people are naive and ignorant about how thoroughly manipulated they are today.  They can't care because they do not know. Obviously, we want to enjoy our lives and many of those who are aware are the ones capitalizing from the manipulation -- the rest of us are simply helpless.

 

At the end of the day, if you are ignorant of the harmful manipulation or knowledgeable about it but powerless do anything; it makes little difference as the results are they same. Actually people who know what is happening are probably under additional stress because of the cognitive dissonance. 

 

Today I image all but most ignorant (or stupid) smokers in America know cigarettes are unhealthy.  However they probably don't know just how aggressively they were targeted by marketers with a highly addictive product known to be lethal.  Far more people will die in Chicago today from cigarette related causes than from gun violence. This is not widely known.

 

I read the book Subliminal Seduction in high school, you probably read it too because it was popular.  It explained how the media uses sex and violence to manipulate human behavior, citing specific examples from Playboy, Vogue, and Cosmopolitan magazines -- nothing has changed except these guy are SO MUCH BETTER at it, because they have machine learning, AI, and much more data at their disposal.  They also have our ignorance on their side.

 

Admittedly I'm closer to the subject because what I do with AALBC, so I understand if others view the subject differently.

 

Subliminal Seduction

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Troy said:

At the end of the day, if you are ignorant of the harmful manipulation or knowledgeable about it but powerless do anything; it makes little difference as the results are they same. Actually people who know what is happening are probably under additional stress because of the cognitive dissonance.  

 

@Troy  It appears you are under the influence  of advertising.  It seems you give it far too much credit.  People can only be influenced to do what they already want to do... it has nothing to do with strong will or lack thereof...it is about the desires and goals.   Every salesperson, every marketer knows that. This is why we sell to audiences that are primed for a sale.   If the person's interest is piqued by the ad - then there's an in...if not then the advertiser seeks to sell to someone who is. 

For example, I'm not particularly disciplined but there's no amount marketing that could make me smoke or drink.  I don't drink beer, liquor, whiskey  or smoke and I grew up in Brooklyn. Further, I am a media junkie.  I watch more television, read more books,  magazine articles and newspapers than the average person.  I can tell you which jingle and tagline goes with which product and there's a lot.   I even collect advertising and promotional items. 

This means I'm exposed to more advertising than the average person but it takes someone in my peer group to suggest I try a product.   The reason why I'm a hard sell is because I like to be in control of my faculties.  My will to remain in control is stronger than the influence of advertising.  


Advertising is that simple there's nothing nefarious about it.  Find someone's desires and goal then you can sell to that thing to them. 

Disclaimer: When I was television news anchor,  I did smoke in the place of eating. I maintained my high school cheerleading size as a grown women of three daughters because I lived on cigarettes and coffee.  My ex-husband smoked and he was thin - so I figured it'd helped me CONTROL my appetite.    I  stopped when it no longer served me haven't smoked cigarettes since.  

My point is, there has to be something in it for the buyer  to be persuaded to bUy the product.    Not the other way around.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes @Mel Hopkins I too am under the influence -- we are all, some to a greater degree than others.

 

Your last post Mel tells me you give marketers too little credit.  You are telling me that you smoked to keep your weight down -- despite knowing how lethal cigarettes are?! Why not simply consume fewer calories, or take the stairs, or park further away from the mall entrance?  It seems to me that you and Cynique will bend over backwards to justify the destructive behavior dictated by marketers...

 

I know you are familiar with the concept of creating a market -- manufacturing demand for a product when one did not previously exist -- even it if consumption of the product is destructive.  Cigarettes are a good example. Crack is another.  I agree there is always some perceived value by the buyer but that perspective may be artificial, as created by the marketer.

 

Part of the skill of a good pulling off a great con is never letting the mark know he has been had.  All of the largest corporations are brilliant at this -- it is variation of having a big gun and being willing to use it.

 

Cigarette manufacturers are making more money today than ever before.  I'd argue they should not be allowed to sell these lethal products, but I'm sure y'all will conjure up some justification for allowing them to continue as more people die...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Troy said:

Your last post Mel tells me you give marketers too little credit.  You are telling me that you smoked to keep your weight down -- despite knowing how lethal cigarettes are?! Why not simply consume fewer calories, or take the stairs, or park further away from the mall entrance?

 

BECAUSE NOT EATING WAS EASIER,  You silly!!! 😆

6 minutes ago, Troy said:

It seems to me that you and Cynique will bend over backwards to justify the destructive behavior dictated by marketers... 

 

@Troy  Anyway, there's no need to bend over backwards; people do what they want to do.  I just believe in the agency of people - and you believe in the power of outside influences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said:

I just believe in the agency of people - and you believe in the power of outside influences. 

 

@Mel Hopkins Yes, that is it.

 

It is not an either or proposition, and there are varying degrees of influence across a wide range of domains.

 

However, all things considered I believe the influence of marketers, in our capitalist society, does us more harm than good.  But again, that is because I believe we are more adversely influenced by their influence than you do.  Death from cancers diabetes, hypertension, poor air quality, etc, are all the result of use behaving in ways, influenced by marketers that is self-destructive.  We can't even get guns out of the hands of crazy folks you'll shoot up a church or school because of the gun culture that has been manufactured .

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Troy said:

It is not an either or proposition, and there are varying degrees of influence across a wide range of domains.

 

And here is where we agree... Oddly enough, even though I don't believe in advertising; I do believe in the influence of written works, the arts, etc  and how they change society as a whole.  

For example, even on a small level, you'd be surprised how many "a commoner marrys a prince/princess" stories that have been running since the beginning of this decade.   By the time Meghan and Harry tied the knot - some people were uncomfortable but not as many as could have been had they not be subjected to all those stories on the small screen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troy said:

It seems to me that you and Cynique will bend over backwards to justify the destructive behavior dictated by marketers...

 I'm not trying to justify destructive behavior.  You have cited bad examples to fortify your arguments.  But not everything that people are influenced into buying is bad for them.  Some purchases may prove beneficial and worthwhile.

 

If manipulation is such a powerful tool, how can the black males in Chicago be manipulated into stopping the wanton and often random murders of their own people?  They seem to be very gullible, - prime targets for manipulation.  What can be done to influence them to make different choices.  Lord knows everybody is trying to bring this about, but nothing seems to work. Maybe these offenders really have minds of their own, - like other so-called targets of manipulation. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, yes @Mel Hopkins all of it is defined by, and impacts, the culture. It is a complex system of influences. However when people are influenced solely by money -- as publicly traded companies are, the tactics become more nefarious resulting in more negative outcomes than we would get from the influence of art.

 

@Cynique I'm not saying that everything people are influenced to buy is bad for them. the ads I place for books aren't bad for people, in fact I'm motivated by helping people more than I am by money... if I were motivated more by money. AALBC would not exist.

 

As far as Chicago's violence, it is a problem that would require more changes that people have the power to implement or enforce.

 

I would start by making the possession of a fire arms even an air gun illegal. I would improve all of the social services from nursery school to senior citizens centers. I would. Improve the quality of housing, education, and health care.  You know the basic shit middle class white people have access to that we dont because of the legacy of enslavement, Jim crow, and racism. Jeff Bezos could fund this by himself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe marketing is effective because identity is a chimera and people are pack animals. Some people are iconoclast loners or free thinkers or just don't want to be manipulated. Or it cc oukd be that if you market the weakness the marketer will prevail. 

 

@Troywhy do you use Google? When you admit they are putting you out of business. That's less sensical than smokers or drinkers, since the ads the people are having fun with other people. And there is a physiological change after using the product. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troy said:

Yes, yes @Mel Hopkins all of it is defined by, and impacts, the culture. It is a complex system of influences. However when people are influenced solely by money -- as publicly traded companies are, the tactics become more nefarious resulting in more negative outcomes than we would get from the influence of art.

 

@Troy , the arts can be used for negative outcomes too... I was giving you an example that seemed to be positive but doesn't have to be. 

Further, I used written works or the arts as a method to shape society to illustrate, like advertising, it operates on a subconscious level to bring about a desired outcome or goal.  It doesn't matter if the goal is money driven, seeking to control a group or to be an opiate of the masses - it is far more effective than advertising.

 

Consider how scripture was and is used throughout the world to remove wealth and power from the masses.  

By the way. if advertising were effective as you believe- then it could easily change the behavior of gangbangers in Chicago.  It would be effective at ending all types of undesirable behaviors - but even with the large money backed PSAs we see the only people who respond are the ones who want to.

 

30 minutes ago, Delano said:

I believe marketing is effective because identity is a chimera and people are pack animals.

 

@Delano, Yes!  I heard a study that most people will purchase products because it allows them access to community; or to be in with "the group."   It would even explain why facebook is still so popular even though people know they've been used and abused by the company.  Loners don't need validation so they are rarely interested in being "in"... in fact, being "in" is repulsive to some loners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kurt Vonnegut was doing marketing for one of the big three auto makers in Detroit. Annie Liebowitz is both a fashion photographer and artist. Melvin Van Peebles was in Financial Service became a film maker writer and painter. So they aren't mutually exclusive categories. 

About 30 years ago I was in a focus group. I wasn't chosen because I did not buy mainstream products. At that point I realised I wasn't a typical consumer. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Cynique said:

i never knew this style had a name or do i recall them wearing the kind of chokers you described.  Maybe it's a regional thing or maybe i just wasn't hip to this because i was in my 40s during that era.

 

Yes maybe it was regional. I too didn't realize it has a name but I remember when it was fashionable and I remember when my older sister wore this style. I think I heard the name much later. I also wonder if this was around the time when the Hippies were popular. 

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

 

 

 

TWA Pictures

 

How-Can-I-Style-Short-Natural-Hair.png

 

 

13-cute-blonde-TWA-hairstyle.jpg

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that ideas pumped into our society can be distructive and, I also believe that some beauty features such as wearing certain hairstyles can be viewed as supporting White Supremacy and Colorism, but today, it is not altogether viewed the same as it was in the past. Today, there are some Black women that wear hairstyles such as blonde afros and weaves as an enhancement to their features like this sista I posted. beautiful!!! She is so beautiful. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2018 at 11:39 AM, Troy said:

There has been a lot of discussion about this subject recently, particularly as if becomes obvious that one person can not possibly provide all the emotional and physical needs another may need.

 

@Troy, I didn't agree with everything you wrote in the full comment  where I pulled this quote from but I put a  "like" on it because it was thoughtful.  

 

 

As for the quote,  I hear a lot of people say and write this sentiment.  I wonder, however, why some believe that it's up to someone outside of us to provide for OUR emotional and physical needs.  Biologically, I understand the need to procreate with more than one person - women have been doing it since females began mating with males... but sex for pleasure has nothing to do with variety... (and no, I'm not speaking from ignorance - I've had my fair share of sex partners and lovers).  And variety definitely has nothing to do with satisfying an individual's emotional needs.   

When I hear this, I know that the person has not matured to the level necessary to engage in a fulfilling relationship with another person.  

Our parents choose to provide for our physical and emotional needs and if they do their job right - we learn how to engage in loving relationships with others.  We can have successful relationships without expecting others to do the job of our parents.  

Maybe that's why polyandry, polygamy, and polyamory appeal to so many "first world" citizens. We've been raised to believe others are supposed to do our heavy lifting whether it be physical, emotional, financial or spiritual.   I can testify while we may thrive in a nurturing community - the aforementioned is an inside job.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins, speaking of Black women with Blond hair:  I was in Atlanta for a few days covering a book event.  I've been sharing links to over 20 videos I've created over the past few days. There were at least three Black authors with Blond hair, either dyed, wig or weave.  I just happened to notice this as I was publishing the videos. One such video is shared below.

 

Admittedly, to @Cynique's point, I do not think these women are self-hating Black women trying to be like white women --  quite the contrary.  One woman, in particular, is simply unique and does what she wants to do despite what anyone else might think. She is an example of a powerful person. 

 

Considering these sisters and additional contemplation, I'm backing off my position of categorizing these women being under the direct influence of marketers in relationship to how they they style their hair.  This may have been true at some point, but in 2018 it has grow way beyond the simple explanation I have asserted.

 

That does not mean I don't not think profit driven marketers don't have an adverse influence on us all (cigarettes, social media, etc), but when it comes to what women do with their hair and why it just is far more complex -- You go Bey LOL!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×