Discussing Linus's take on "Crush"

[Erioch]

I can't form an opinion until Dbrand's Twitter guy weighs in on this.

[GoStormPlays]

12 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

@GoStormPlays Let's say I decide to do some art. That art involves covering my face in black paint in a way that is very similar to a racist way. If people call me out for that and I say "It's just art. It was meant to signify my depression", does that change how it does and should be perceived by others? Does me being the "artist" and saying one thing make what others would say invalid?

For some people, it will, for others, they'll just completely disregard the art and your art will never get anywhere in terms of success.

[IkeaGnome]

1 hour ago, GoStormPlays said:

For some people, it will, for others, they'll just completely disregard the art and your art will never get anywhere in terms of success.

You missed the point. Would me saying it's art suddenly make it not racist with decades of being historically racist?

[SansVarnic]

The commercial was stupid, but it was obvious what it meant to convey. If you're offended by the commercial or took it for something else ... welp  .

 

It's not art, it's a commercial.

The media will pander to anyone for anything to feel useful valid.

 

 

 

 

[Brian McKee]

11 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

The commercial was stupid, but it was obvious what it meant to convey. If you're offended by the commercial or took it for something else ... welp  .

 

It's not art, it's a commercial.

The media will pander to anyone for anything to feel 

Another one of those, non-issue, moving on moments.

 

 

 

You are so confident in your ignorance it's kind of cute. It's like you didn't read my post at all.

[SansVarnic]

10 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

You are so confident in your ignorance it's kind of cute. It's like you didn't read my post at all.

I wasn't commenting on your comment. I was commenting on the commercial specifically. Your presumption was nice though. 

No need to be hostile about my opinion. I wasn't towards you, step it down some. 

 

 

[Brian McKee]

9 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

I wasn't commenting on your comment. I was commenting on the commercial. Your presumption was nice though. 

No need to be hostile about my opinion. I wasn't towards you, step it down some. 

No offense, but the title of the thread is discussing Linus's take on the subject not exactly what you think about the commercial. To me the commercial itself is insubstantial to the argument. People didn't like it, Apple apologized, not much more to talk about.

 

The reason I even made this thread was due to Linus's take  on the situation. Because the commercial's context was "so clear" that people should have taken this into account when critiquing it as if it were a requirement on critiquing a piece of media.

 

Quoting myself from the original post:

 

Quote

Going back to the original point, I just don't see how even if Apple explicitly stated the point of ad that people shouldn't feel a certain way about it. Criticism and embodying the lessons from it I think is the hardest and most important part of any work. Simply saying "you don't understand it" and telling them they're wrong isn't how you deal with valid critique. I mean Linus himself has to deal with critique constantly obviously, and a lot of it of course is just noise, but if there's a very consistent theme are you just going to ignore it?

 

Discounting all the criticism as "manufactured outrage" because he himself "got it" is not a valid argument in my eyes. Artist's intent doesn't invalidate the way a piece of media makes you feel.

[SansVarnic]

3 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

No offense, but the title of the thread is discussing Linus's take on the subject not exactly what you think about the commercial. To me the commercial itself is insubstantial to the argument. People didn't like it, Apple apologized, not much more to talk about.

 

The reason I even made this thread was due to Linus's take  on the situation. Because the commercial's context was "so clear" that people should have taken this into account when critiquing it as if it were a requirement on critiquing a piece of media.

 

Quoting myself from the original post:

 

 

Discounting all the criticism as "manufactured outrage" because he himself "got it" is not a valid argument in my eyes.

Ok. But why the hostility toward me? Seems we agree on the issue.

Linus makes a lot comments about things, he has 3hrs to fill, I listen to the wan show with half an ear, picking out only what interests me, this wasn't one of them.

 

[Brian McKee]

1 minute ago, SansVarnic said:

Ok. But why the hostility toward me? Seems we agree on the issue.

Linus makes a lot comments about things, he has 3hrs to fill, I listen to the wan show with half an ear, picking out only what interests me, this wasn't one of them.

 

If you took it as hostility I apologize. Perhaps more frustration is what I felt in that moment.

[SansVarnic]

1 minute ago, Brian McKee said:

If you took it as hostility I apologize. Perhaps more frustration is what I felt in that moment.

No worries, unless I am specifically quoting you or @ you then I am typically making general audience commentary and mostly towards the subject. Just fyi.

And to be transparent, I wasn't aware you where the OP before the topic was merged (now I see that) so I couldn't understand why you thought I was commenting to you instead of GoStormPlays, I was confused. Anyhow, no harm no foul. 

 

[Theorize5061]

4 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

The commercial was stupid, but it was obvious what it meant to convey. If you're offended by the commercial or took it for something else ... welp

I still disagree with the whole 'it was obvious' point. Even though they might want to make this the obvious point, it doesn't mean that this is the only 'right' message.
This is again kind of just belittling the other perspectives, just as Luke and Linus did.
And 'it's not art'? Well, first off, it is. Secondly, it wouldn't matter if it wasn't.
There appears to be a sentiment here that people shouldn't get offended because this is 'obviously' not what was meant. I find this outright nonsense. People are well within their right to get offended and also to voice it, and also to demand an honest apology. They got hurt, for reasons that are very valid. Making fun of these people or telling them 'how they missed the point' is simply a display of ignorance in my opinion.
People also seem to 'side with Apple', which I don't understand, apart from they are a bit gullible. This was clearly a decision Apple made — they chose violent destruction coupled with that specific song. We don't have to accept that Apple wants to normalize this kind of imagery and these messages in the mainstream (see my first post, where I explain my thoughts in more depth). I, personally, find a lot of marketing material highly concerning. I think that people who say “It's just marketing, look the other way if you don't like it” contribute to the problem that corporations get to have a lot of influence over how society thinks about things. This is outright neglectful. Apple may not be a villain here, and I don't think they have to take the ad down, but I find it confusing as to why there are people even defending this ad. The point made against the ad (that they are alluding to replace all kinds of virtuoso craftsmanship) is not far-fetched, it is a simple (and in my opinion good) interpretation which I can't imagine Apple hadn't thought of before. It is after all blatantly obvious if you take the time to think about it for a moment. 
I think it is not a good way to deal with such upcoming thoughts, even if they go against ones own interpretation, by dismissing the interpretation and claim altogether. 
I truly am a bit sad about some of these reactions in the forum here as well. But find it reassuring that people seem to have come to the same conclusion as me, so it is not my imagination at least.

[GoStormPlays]

11 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

You missed the point. Would me saying it's art suddenly make it not racist with decades of being historically racist?

If there’s an argument for it being interpreting Apple’s way (which there is; I originall interpretated the way they meant it to be) then no.

 

8 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Linus makes a lot comments about things, he has 3hrs to fill, I listen to the wan show with half an ear, picking out only what interests me, this wasn't one of them.

sometimes I wonder why he affirms the rules he does on the forum when he breaks almost every single rule on the WAN show regularly…

 

[GoStormPlays]

8 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

And to be transparent, I wasn't aware you where the OP before the topic was merged (now I see that) so I couldn't understand why you thought I was commenting to you instead of GoStormPlays, I was confused. Anyhow, no harm no foul. 

is there not a way for mods to change the OP of a topic??

[SansVarnic]

11 hours ago, GoStormPlays said:

is there not a way for mods to change the OP of a topic??

When merging topics, the first post takes precedence. Nothing we can do about it.

 

 

 

15 hours ago, Theorize5061 said:

People are well within their right to get offended and also to voice it,

Yes, who said they cant?

15 hours ago, Theorize5061 said:

I still disagree with the whole 'it was obvious' point. Even though they might want to make this the obvious point, it doesn't mean that this is the only 'right' message.

Ok but it was plainly obvious what the intended message is. Who said anything about a "right" message? People will interpret as they wish.

Sometimes a molehill is just a molehill and nothing else. 

15 hours ago, Theorize5061 said:

and also to demand an honest apology.

nope. Being offended doesn't grant automatic rights to much of anything. Example if I was to feel offended by your reply to me, do I suddenly get to demand you make a formal apology to me? Each to their own, meaning your offense is on you.

Let's make it clear I'm no advocate for Apple, I couldn't care less. But I know what I know, and this commercial has absolutely nothing to be offended about. It's just a stupid remake of a previous old commercial. 

[Erioch]

[Brian McKee]

1 hour ago, Erioch said:

Just like Stephen Fry is allowed to bitch about people bitching, people are allowed valid criticism on media. Pointless post right here, use your own words to discuss things and don't hide behind the words of others.

[Erioch]

16 minutes ago, Brian McKee said:

use your own words

I don't have any of my own words.  I just use ones already made up.

[Bitter]

I don't get it. Ad clearly shows that they 'compressed' all those broad functions into one device. Gaming, creative/arts, music, media consumption, etc. What's the uproar about? I mean clearly I must be their intended audience if I get the ad?

[GoStormPlays]

1 hour ago, Brian McKee said:

Just like Stephen Fry is allowed to bitch about people bitching, people are allowed valid criticism on media. Pointless post right here, use your own words to discuss things and don't hide behind the words of others.

It’s a joke. Lighten up.

[Kisai]

On 5/13/2024 at 2:21 AM, Kilrah said:

Wonder if there's an age gap thing. The "We squeezed all of THIS into this, now you can use it for everything and it's all you need!" marketing's been used many times over the years, it's not even original... e.g.

 

 

But maybe younger people don't get the references, and yeah I can see how some may be "on the edge" with the recent AI stuff and see it that way, but IMO the ad doesn't really take that angle.

 

 

IMO. I got the intent of the ad, but I saw the items being crushed and had a emotional feeling of outrage. I sure hope that stuff was CG, cause if it wasn't, the Japanese outrage is definitely warranted.

 

The meaning that "you can do all this stuff on the iPad" I felt was pretty obvious. The "you don't need this stuff anymore" might have been unintentional, and the only way that wouldn't have been read is if the items were not destroyed but instead thrown into an "app" writers room. Eg a bunch of people measuring, testing and confirming what these things are. Then revealing this is inside the iPad.

 

 

[Theorize5061]

8 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Yes, who said they cant?

This is what many people are implying by saying 'why would you be offended, this is not intended'.
 

 

8 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Sometimes a molehill is just a molehill and nothing else. 

Yes, but not in this case. I feel like I have made clear that there are multiple offending interpretations that are valid. They come from reason and can be explained effortlessly. This makes them well-working interpretations. If these were intended, doesn't matter. 

 

8 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Being offended doesn't grant automatic rights to much of anything. Example if I was to feel offended by your reply to me, do I suddenly get to demand you make a formal apology to me? Each to their own, meaning your offense is on you.

This is unbelievable. You always have the right to demand an apology if they feel mistreated — whether they will receive this apology is not said (In this case, even Apple apologized, so even they saw the problem). We have moved on from Greek and Stoic ethics where one has to only deal with themselves, my friend. For a few hundred years now, society has been shaped by interpersonal relationships, it is nonsense and not timely to say 'each to their own', especially in this case. You can definitely demand an apology if you were to get offended over what I say, and I would try to understand the reason and act upon it, if I didn't, that'd be negligent by me.

I hear you saying that you may think some people get offended for nothing, yes, some people get offended over small things which they perhaps don't have to — I agree, that this can be an issue. But saying this in this case, where the people are getting offended with good reasoning that should be obvious to anyone trying to understand them, is just ignorant. Telling them to shut down is starting to move into the realm of malicious.

[Blasty Blosty]

Can someone explain to me what the issue is with the commercial?

[Theorize5061]

49 minutes ago, Blasty Blosty said:

Can someone explain to me what the issue is with the commercial?

On 5/13/2024 at 6:57 PM, Theorize5061 said:

The tools stand for the human made things of high cultural value → craftsmanship in the broadest sense, which is being reformed (crushed by the press) into a convenient, non-effort and slim piecemeal of the future (the iPad) / be it the medium or the tool. Sculpting vs. 3D printing, artist generated everything vs. AI-generated everything etc… Remember, the song in the ad ends with “ALL I EVER need is YOU” — and this surely doesn't mean the manual tools and media... Apple (I find) clearly alludes to REPLACING the old ways and seems to show little respect to the value that these things have to a large group of people (but clearly not Linus and Luke).

Furthermore, I am surprised that the word 'violence' is not represented in this discussion at all. There is a way to communicate the merging of multiple tools into one which is not disruptive to the original tools. This IS a choice Apple made, so they MUST be communicating something by using violence; otherwise there wouldn't be a reason for it, which it highly unlikely — it's marketing by Apple. Then, why must they be using violence in this ad, if not to provoke exactly the provoking meaning?

The above is a possible and upsetting interpretation in my opinion which is 'the issue' for some people, including me... But the disregard of the Shinto believes was also mentioned, which is not the focus of discussion here. Other people may have other issues as well. There is no 'the issue' to be fair

 

[Blasty Blosty]

31 minutes ago, Theorize5061 said:

The above is a possible and upsetting interpretation in my opinion which is 'the issue' for some people, including me... But the disregard of the Shinto believes was also mentioned, which is not the focus of discussion here. Other people may have other issues as well. There is no 'the issue' to be fair

 

Hmm, I guess I'm just passive

 

I don't see how people are getting so wound up over this ad, its literally just an ad to show the iPad is thin. Doesn't mean any more, doesn't mean any less.

[Theorize5061]

25 minutes ago, Blasty Blosty said:

Doesn't mean any more, doesn't mean any less.

But it does mean more. Just like 'inner city' doesn't just mean the inner city. The message is not just what may be intended. And if you know that the message you are conveying is not just what you meant, but you decided to stick with what you said and make no changes, that means that you at least tolerate it.
I haven't yet made the move yet to call this manipulative, but you can easily make an argument that this ad is a dog whistle. One of the most dangerous rhetorical instruments infamous in political discourse.
I personally am more wound up with the reaction to the criticism. It seems that people are not only not taking it serious or don't want to care (which is okay). But they want the critics to not take issue because 'this is not what Apple meant'..

 

31 minutes ago, Blasty Blosty said:

Hmm, I guess I'm just passive

That's fair and totally good. The issue is that people are belittling those that take issue with it and are outright ignorant of what is being presented as issue.