Boyah's Weekly Activity Booster. Brought to you by: Lawlz™

[don't let's]

and really i already said why paying for a product and still receiving ads is wrong

it benefits no one relevant to either production or consumption of the artistic content

read

How does that mean that mean that it's wrong though?

And actually the no benefits thing is something that's probably subjective and not entirely true in every case.

[ncba93ivyase]

taxing the poor for the sole purpose of giving to the rich also isn't necessarily wrong

if you see this as "deflection", then you are failing to make any sort of connection between two nearly identical points

[don't let's]

taxing the poor for the sole purpose of giving to the rich also isn't necessarily wrong

if you see this as "deflection", then you are failing to make any sort of connection between two nearly identical points

Taxing the poor is taking money away from people. Putting ads in something isn't the same thing at all. I can see what you were trying to go for here, but I don't think it works and falls apart pretty easily.

Though, are you now saying that putting ads in a paid for product isn't "necessarily wrong"? Are you switching to that sort of stance?

[ncba93ivyase]

taxing the poor for the sole purpose of giving to the rich also isn't necessarily wrong

if you see this as "deflection", then you are failing to make any sort of connection between two nearly identical points

Taxing the poor is taking money away from people. Putting ads in something isn't the same thing at all. I can see what you were trying to go for here, but I don't think it works and falls apart pretty easily.

Though, are you now saying that putting ads in a paid for product isn't "necessarily wrong"? Are you switching to that sort of stance?

paying for a service is taking money from people

ads don't immediately take money from people, but they do at some point or another. their purpose is to get a person to either buy something they wouldn't have needed/wanted otherwise or plant a seed of knowledge for whenever they need a good or service later. ads in entertainment never feature the latter.

excessive advertisements result in a cycle of people buying goods they don't need just so that they can be further convinced to buy more shit they don't need. these ads offer no benefit to the consumer--only an emptier wallet and increasingly braindead content. ad revenue in such content also doesn't benefit the content creators and flows up to the people pushing for more ads and control. these people use their ever increasing wealth in order to establish more power through cultural and governmental (lobbying) domination

honestly just straight up taxing the poor just because they're poor is less detrimental than ads. people defend excessive advertising because it's a delayed effect that's not immediately obvious and successful marketers are making increasingly dumb commercials so that people think they've above the influence. a straight up poor people's tax makes its consequences more visible. they're the same thing except one is easily hidden.

if ads didn't take money from people, ads would be pointless. they're used because they work and they're incredibly successful. nobody wants to pay taxes. nearly every 20 something male loves old spice commercials plus their products.

[Geno]

And Lawlz still has yet to explain why ads affect him personally. Only how they affect stupid people. We're just going around in circles here because you keep dodging the main question we're asking.

[ncba93ivyase]

And Lawlz still has yet to explain why ads affect him personally. Only how they affect stupid people. We're just going around in circles here because you keep dodging the main question we're asking.

holy fuck geno read the fucking thread i directly responded to this holy shit

you're the one who has yet to justify them in any way or do anything but ask this fucking question


geno i swear to fucking god silvertone and i are going to board you up in your house and have the world's greatest goddamn boyager meetup right next door and put burning bags of dog shit in front of all of your windows and doors and your house will smell like dog shit but you won't be able to extinguish the flames and you'll choke and die on dog shit fumes. what made you will also kill you.

i am throwing down 5 god DAMN dollars geno i will go out and collect the dog shit myself this is fucking happening jesus fucking christ

i'll give you an upperdecker with dog shit and don't you fucking doubt it for one little second you fat bastard

[Geno]

And Lawlz still has yet to explain why ads affect him personally. Only how they affect stupid people. We're just going around in circles here because you keep dodging the main question we're asking.

holy fuck geno read the fucking thread i directly responded to this holy shit

you're the one who has yet to justify them in any way or do anything but ask this fucking question


geno i swear to fucking god silvertone and i are going to board you up in your house and have the world's greatest goddamn boyager meetup right next door and put burning bags of dog shit in front of all of your windows and doors and your house will smell like dog shit but you won't be able to extinguish the flames and you'll choke and die on dog shit fumes. what made you will also kill you.

i am throwing down 5 god DAMN dollars geno i will go out and collect the dog shit myself this is fucking happening jesus fucking christ

i'll give you an upperdecker with dog shit and don't you fucking doubt it for one little second you fat bastard

I love you Lawlz.

And uh, why do you want me to justify ads exactly? I never said I agree with them. I just don't think they're as big of a deal as you're making them out to be.

[don't let's]

paying for a service is taking money from people

Because people are willing buy that service, in most cases. And you can say that they're brainwashed into liking it or whatever, and that's possibly true to an extent on certain things. But, you know…

ads don't immediately take money from people, but they do at some point or another. their purpose is to get a person to either buy something they wouldn't have needed/wanted otherwise or plant a seed of knowledge for whenever they need a good or service later. ads in entertainment never feature the latter.

the ads themselves don't actually. The product or the company behind it does. But that's just probably semantics.

excessive advertisements result in a cycle of people buying goods they don't need just so that they can be further convinced to buy more shit they don't need. these ads offer no benefit to the consumer--only an emptier wallet and increasingly braindead content.

Yes, it can though not always. But then you have to ask is how much does it affect? How many people, and how often? And are they themselves actually ok with buying products and goods that they don't actually need? (Which there are tons of unneeded products and whole industries out here such as video games, movies, and tv. With a possible exemption there for news but even that's  at least somewhat debatable in its current form. )

ad revenue in such content also doesn't benefit the content creators and flows up to the people pushing for more ads and control. these people use their ever increasing wealth in order to establish more power through cultural and governmental (lobbying) domination

honestly just straight up taxing the poor just because they're poor is less detrimental than ads. people defend excessive advertising because it's a delayed effect that's not immediately obvious and successful marketers are making increasingly dumb commercials so that people think they've above the influence. a straight up poor people's tax makes its consequences more visible. they're the same thing except one is easily hidden.

Well I'm not exactly defending it, but I don't see what was happening in the Windows 8 case in the same manner as you were. And I think it doesn't even apply to most of the stuff you were saying here in this thread. Given the few points I've made earlier about turning off the live tile and unpinning it. And in that picture it just being the app store and it just displaying app store content. If it also displayed other content, then yeah, I would have been more sympathetic to what you were saying. But it doesn't.

Maybe your thing here was to make some bigger point about ads in general, but Windows 8 didn't really fit with any points you were trying to make and I think it was a mistake to try and use that because it didn't fit with what you were saying. I think that's what was confusing most people here and why people were calling you out for a lot of this. (And it comeplety undermine  everything, or most things, you were saying)


As for the lobbying, yeah I can see that.
I still don't think your taxing the poor thing works really in comparison to most things here.

if ads didn't take money from people, ads would be pointless. they're used because they work and they're incredibly successful. nobody wants to pay taxes. nearly every 20 something male loves old spice commercials plus their products.

Well, yeah because some commercial are a form of entertainment now too. And it does get people to try out products, and then people actually might like those products too if they keep going back to them.

And you can be sure that if somebody doesn't like something some people will vilify and then you have some people that are just indifferent to it and write it off without any fuss.

taxing the poor for the sole purpose of giving to the rich also isn't necessarily wrong

if you see this as "deflection", then you are failing to make any sort of connection between two nearly identical points

Taxing the poor is taking money away from people. Putting ads in something isn't the same thing at all. I can see what you were trying to go for here, but I don't think it works and falls apart pretty easily.

Though, are you now saying that putting ads in a paid for product isn't "necessarily wrong"? Are you switching to that sort of stance?

and, yo?