]And yet you're the one talking about her dress constantly.
It is a child's cartoon, I thought it a good example for your level of thinking
Happy to do so.
I thought you were very pro-business, pro-capitalist.
Surprised to be wrong, but that's cool.
and apparently still wrong
It's a very easy concept.
You're the one who seems to have issues with it.
Private enterprise is making marketing choices and you think it is an attack on you.
That's kind of fucked up.
Not when the wokesters put pressure on the private enterprise
This was explained already
You are against pressure from the consumer?
Too bad wokesters do not represent the consumer
They represent something entirely different and it aint pretty
You prefer that corporations have complete control over other people's behavior?
The consumer can always choose another corporations product- Ah the beauty of competition
You do your authoritarian self, booboo.
You can't seem to decide who is control of what and why.
I am in control of the consumer items and, services I purchase
I certainly do not care what you spend your money on
That is none of my business and not worth 1 second of my time
I have zero interest in controlling others, save push back against those that do want that control
You just seem to be upset that you can't fuck candy.
I am not familiar with any gal named candy, however who knows who I shall meet tomorrow
Or did you think that the choice to have "sexy" candy wasn't them trying to control you?
And if so, why did you think that?
Because I make purchase decisions based on value as opposed to marketing gimmicks.
If I feel the marketing gimmick is deceiving ' AKA the sham Wow guy, I mock him as impersonating one of the Kielbruger brothers
So this is just an article of faith you've embraced, you know that, right?
How is "Ronald McDonald was phased out" and "the sexy M&M was phased out" any different other than the second one upsets you for some reason?
You disagree with a corporation's marketing.
Not at all if it is driven from the company, as opposed to external woksters who' have no vested interest in the company and whose objective is control over others
Smarten up
You are all about controlling people's behavior, though.
Right here in this thread you are actively railing against a choice by a corporation to change their marketing.
You aren't even mad that they are doing it to distract from the child slavery lawsuits, you just are offended that the M&M isn't sexy anymore and want it changed back.
If this were the case you would chose not to purchase their product no matter how they marketed it
That is your choice and I respect that is your choice
If you have an issue with how a company operates , do not buy their product
If you believe they are breaking the law call law enforcement
If I owned shares in that company, I would have to make a very quick decision to hold or sell and likely would sell to avoid price risk.
I might do follow up research to determine if there was any merit to the accusation
But lets be clear, your views or the views of any wokster are immaterial to my decision
If you want to change the marketing program of a corporation, buy enough shares to gain control.
External woksters have no alignment of objectives with the shareholders who have capital at risk
That risk includes how the company operates and if the operations are violation of the law those shareholders will face the downside of that risk up to and including a complete loss of capital
If you didn't care so much, you'd just shrug and ignore it.
No the wokster thirst for control over others is sadly never going away, so push back is required
Personally I think the compulsion to control other is some sort of metal issue, however it could be genic.
I am not a phycologist so I can not be definitive.
Either way that compulsion is not going away for the woksters
