The guy isn't exactly traditional muslim himself. He was driving a Jeep Cherokee. I think Allah pretty much requires radical muslims to drive Toyota pick-ups. I could be wrong. How the hell you gonna mount a machine gun in the back of a Jeep Cherokee?
117,360 views|Jan 15, 2019,7:21 am Why Gillette's New Ad Campaign Is Toxic Charles TaylorContributor CMO Network I am a Professor and a student of current events in marketing Back in 1989, Gillette made a big impression on consumers with a Super Bowl ad using the tagline “The Best a Man Can Get.” For 30 years, the company successfully reinforced the high quality of its products via use of the tag, and was able to charge a price premium yet gain market share. In 2005, the highly valuable brand was acquired by mega-marketer Procter and Gamble for $57 billion. Gillette products, including Sensor razors, Foamy shave cream, Right Guard deodorant and Oral B toothbrushes, are stacked in a shopping cart along with Proctor & Gamble’s Crest toothpaste, Old Spice, Secret deodorant, and Pampers diapers, in this photo illustration made in Melrose, Massachusetts Friday January 28, 2005. Proctor & Gamble is planning to purchase Gillette for $57-Billion. Photographer: Neal Hamberg /Bloomberg NewsBLOOMBERG NEWS 2014 and Neilsen 2017). While there appears to be something to this generalization about millennials and CSR appeals, much more needs to be learned about the nuances of what works and what does not. In this case, it appears Gillette will learn a lesson about what not to do as pertains to corporate responsibility efforts. Reaction to “We Believe in the Best in Men” has been overwhelmingly negative, with comments on its own Youtube channel running negative by an astonishing ten to one margin. There are those who really like the ad really like the campaign a lot and argue that it is simply trying to reinforce positive behavior. However, the much larger group who dislikes it includes many men who are saying the ad is insulting to men and full of stereotypes. What is perhaps most dangerous for Gillette, however, is the large number of posters who are threatening to never buy the product again. full story on Forbes https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...5/why-gillettes-new-ad-campaign-is-toxic/amp/
The Australian Gillette condemns masculinity to death by a thousand cutsBETTINA ARNDTFollow @thebettinaarndt Scene from a new Gillette ad that deals with issues of "toxic masculinity". Picture: YouTube 8:50PM JANUARY 16, 2019 100 Facebook Twitter Email Twenty years ago, Gillette’s 1989 shaver ad was a celebration of masculinity, fathers hugging their children, men as corporate stars, champion athletes, devoted husbands, fun-loving friends. “We know how to make the best of who you are,” boasted the proud commentary over waves of heroic music. The latest dark, accusatory Gillette advertisement launched this week speaks to the great achievement of third-wave feminism in trashing the male brand. There’s scene after scene said to illustrate “toxic masculinity” — men treating women with disdain, nasty aggressive boys, brutish men. The virtue-signalling campaign from Gillette praises only the few men it claims are willing to teach most men to behave. It captures the Zeitgeist in the most shocking fashion. Here’s a huge corporation that helps men deal with one of their most obvious secondary sexual characteristics — their facial hair. The Gillette executives earn their living feeding off what it means to be male. And now they decide to attack their customer base, to announce to the world that everything about masculinity is bad, dangerous and deficient. It’s the most extraordinary moment — like the reverberations from the Harvey Weinstein case that inspired MeToo and the dangerous witch-hunt that followed. The Gillette ad may just represent a similar tipping point, a defining event that motivates the silent majority to speak out against the constant demonisation of men. On Wednesday, social media was alive not just with indignant men sneering at Gillette and promising to boycott its products but also with women, including mothers of sons offended by the notion that two boys rough-housing was toxic, arguing that the male-bashing just has to stop. Negative comments poured in (even as Gillette tried to delete them), with YouTube dislikes outnumbering likes of the ad by 10 to one. The feminist commentators were out in force, dismissing complaints as venom from angry men and praising the ad for calling it as it is. Jane Caro celebrated Gillette’s bravery in taking on toxic masculinity. Clementine Ford deliberately fudged the message, claiming the ad suggested only some men were sexist, violent and rowdy. It helped even out the numbers a little, although YouTube’s responses were still running three to one against the ad. The real test will come later, when we see whether the company prospers from its bizarre decision to use feminist dogma to denounce its own valued consumers
That is a really sad. We used to build up America the West and our people. Everybody was part of the melting pot and we strove to improve. Now we have interests trying to balkanize us.
get the fuck out of here with your bullshit. preach that to this fucking bitch and her closeted gay husband. Karen Pence to teach at a school that bans gay students, parents, employees https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/16/karen-pence-christian-school-1104090
Darn it Baron. Why did you change your standards and allow naked women on this site? Now many of us can't apply. I should have exercised more discipline - if I wanted to work in certain private sector jobs which are affiliated with certain religious institutions. I wonder if I can eat pork for lunch at a mosque or a temple job? Those horrible people keeping me out of employment in their religious centers because I don't follow their professed creeds? === The agreement also lists disqualifying qualifications, including "heterosexual activity outside of marriage (e.g., premarital sex, cohabitation, extramarital sex), homosexual or lesbian sexual activity, polygamy, transgender identity, any other violation of the unique roles of male and female, sexual harassment, use or viewing of pornographic material or websites, and sexual abuse or improprieties toward minors as defined by Scripture and federal or state law.”
Typical hypocritical answer from an asshole who speaks of a melting pot and our strive as a nation to be better but yet thinks, it's OK to have the VP of a country like ours which champions freedom to discriminate based on some bullshit religion nonsense. President and the VP are supposed to represent all Americans, whereas assholes like you as an individual can continue being bigots and racists freely. how is that different from not letting a person of color or minority attending that school? will you be ok if she was going to teach at a school which would only allow whites (with a box to check that you are not a person of color or a minority)?