Dove Soap Ad Features Transgender Mom, Facebook Censors Critics

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Not really...the ad was placed solely for the purpose of cashing in on identity politics. Its not like they have a real group demographic to promote to, as trans people are statistically minute within the population. They were simply wanting to include themselves in the identity politics du jour.

a reply to: neo96

They don't buy Dove products. Simple as that. Don't like Facebook "censoring" posts? Don't use it. It's amazing how that works.

It's amazing how all the people calling for the government to overstep their bounds or having the Constitution apply in situations where it shouldn't are the same people that rail against a large government every day on here.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Not really...the ad was placed solely for the purpose of cashing in on identity politics. Its not like they have a real group demographic to promote to, as trans people are statistically minute within the population. They were simply wanting to include themselves in the identity politics du jour.

I disagree.
With that line of thinking anything involving transgendered people can be labelled "identity politics" by the detractors.

They're not always pushing an agenda.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

So any identity politics is coming from your ilk.

No it's coming from Dove and Facebook NAZI censorship.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

They don't buy Dove products. Simple as that. Don't like Facebook "censoring" posts? Don't use it. It's amazing how that works.

You'd be singing a different tune if the story was Trump turning CNN off because they said something he didn't like.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Go start your own social media networking site and you can decide what is and isn't censored. Facebook isn't the government. They can censor whatever the hell they want and there is nothing you can do about it.

I agree, but you forgot "neener neener neener"

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Xcalibur254

They don't buy Dove products. Simple as that. Don't like Facebook "censoring" posts? Don't use it. It's amazing how that works.

You'd be singing a different tune if the story was Trump turning CNN off because they said something he didn't like.

Play that victim card while deflecting to something not related to the topic at all. What does Trump and CNN have to do with the topic?

We get it. You're a victim. Every thread you post in you bring in some moot point (that's off topic) so you and your demograph can be seen as the victim.

Are you seriously insinuating that people are going to get outraged and offended (such as those who do by a Dove commercial) because Trump would theoretically turn off a TV?

Wtf? How is that relevant, or on topic?

Your posts are toxic.

a reply to: RomeByFire

The only victim here is the Youtuber Facebook 'suspended'.

Everyone knows Zuckerberg and Facebooks politics.

Censorship the new social justice.

Decades ago that use to be called book burning.

a reply to: neo96

So you want to force Facebook to stop censoring people? What's next? ATS?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Free and unencumbered political speech is guaranteed by the first amendment.

a reply to: neo96

I don't even watch CNN so why would I care if Trump watches it? If he tried to ban CNN or get them shut down then I would have an issue as that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.

a reply to: neo96

Yes. It prevents the government from limiting speech. The Constitution only limits what the government can and cannot do. Once again, Facebook is not the government.

Where's your outrage when Breitbart deletes comments that support a liberal point of view?

a reply to: neo96

So Facebook is government? Maybe it's like a secret CIA and NSA site that spy on everyone?
Hmmm.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Not really...the ad was placed solely for the purpose of cashing in on identity politics. Its not like they have a real group demographic to promote to, as trans people are statistically minute within the population. They were simply wanting to include themselves in the identity politics du jour.

I disagree.
With that line of thinking anything involving transgendered people can be labelled "identity politics" by the detractors.

They're not always pushing an agenda.

advertising, by its very definition, is pushing an agenda. I don't know why its so hard to believe.

In this case, its likely the "agenda" is simply trying to put the brand on the "same team" of another demographic that some marketers have data telling them has potential for vertical growth. I doubt Dove cares one way or another about any humans....they are a corporation aiming for profits.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Awww guys don't be so hard on the Neolithic.

You'll just confuse 'em with all these facts.

If this weren't so tragic it'd be hilarious ... once again we've proven that cisgendered identity politics (i.e. "The way things are") are fine and dandy, but Trans*, non-binary and any other alternate identities are all merely "politics."

a reply to: Gryphon66

The interesting thing is that just a few days ago neo wanted Facebook to be held responsible for giving Stephens a platform to host his video and not censoring it fast enough. Now he's calling Facebook Nazis and claiming they're in violation of the First Amendment for censoring a user.

I'm starting to wonder if Mark Zuckerberg ran over his dog.

Did someone say 1984?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Gryphon66

The interesting thing is that just a few days ago neo wanted Facebook to be held responsible for giving Stephens a platform to host his video and not censoring it fast enough. Now he's calling Facebook Nazis and claiming they're in violation of the First Amendment for censoring a user.

I'm starting to wonder if Mark Zuckerberg ran over his dog.

There are several here in competition for the Poster Boy for cognitive dissonance.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Did someone say 1984?

Nope.