The latest descent into “Wokeness”: A shopping mall in a Democrat town

[Indeependent]

So pleased to see your not a racist.

As you well know, that issue was addressed at the start of the Thread.

 

[JoeB131]

To answer those already answered questions go back to the start of the Thread.

She was very vague on those points.

 

[Colin norris]

As you well know, that issue was addressed at the start of the Thread.

I don't care what you think. Dont instruct me on anything.

 

[Indeependent]

She was very vague on those points.

No she wasn't; thanks for proving your brain can only absorb what it wants to absorb.

 

[Indeependent]

I don't care what you think. Dont instruct me on anything.

The problem is all you LibTards never think and you spam bullshit a week after you were already answered.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Growing up in OKC the malls were all white and sparkling because blacks were not allowed to get out of their side of town.

All "sparkling" clean? What a horrible time! I would much rather see gang tagging, broken glass, and some mugging going on!

 

[Lisa558]

So intentionally excluding blacks isn’t racist, “it makes sense”, but intentionally excluding whites is racist? That is not an internally consistent argument.

I never said it was OK to intentionally exclude blacks. I said it was OK when ads were mostly of whites because most of the country is white. That is what makes sense.

What doesn’t make sense is when most ads are of blacks, or even half of ads are of blacks, when they are only 14% of the population. and what makes even less sense is when ALL posters are of blacks. The only way it makes sense is to recognize the anti-white bias behind it.

 

[Indeependent]

I never said it was OK to intentionally exclude blacks. I said it was OK when ads were mostly of whites because most of the country is white. That is what makes sense.

What doesn’t make sense is when most ads are of blacks, or even half of ads are of blacks, when they are only 14% of the population. and what makes even less sense is when ALL posters are of blacks. The only way it makes sense is to recognize the anti-white bias behind it.

Keep in mind that LibBots and ProgBots color every sentence they read.

 

[Lisa558]

Keep in mind that LibBots and ProgBots color every sentence they read.

Thanks. I notice how they always change what I say since that’s the only way they can debate. If they stuck with the truth, they’d lose. Bigly.

 

[Coyote]

I never said it was OK to intentionally exclude blacks. I said it was OK when ads were mostly of whites because most of the country is white. That is what makes sense.

But they were intentionally excluded.

What doesn’t make sense is when most ads are of blacks, or even half of ads are of blacks, when they are only 14% of the population. and what makes even less sense is when ALL posters are of blacks. The only way it makes sense is to recognize the anti-white bias behind it.

If blacks were only shown in 14 % of the ads, we would almost never see them. Blacks would almost never see themselves represented as part of mainstream America either. Asians at 6%, Jews and Muslims at 1%, would simply cease to exist in our nations advertising.

Is that supposed to be a good thing? If so, I am not seeing it.

 

[Indeependent]

But they were intentionally excluded.



If blacks were only shown in 14 % of the ads, we would almost never see them. Blacks would almost never see themselves represented as part of mainstream America either. Asians at 6%, Jews and Muslims at 1%, would simply cease to exist in our nations advertising.

Is that supposed to be a good thing? If so, I am not seeing it.

They are not 90% of the population.

 

[Lisa558]

But they were intentionally excluded.



If blacks were only shown in 14 % of the ads, we would almost never see them. Blacks would almost never see themselves represented as part of mainstream America either. Asians at 6%, Jews and Muslims at 1%, would simply cease to exist in our nations advertising.

Is that supposed to be a good thing? If so, I am not seeing it.

If blacks are shown in 14% of ads, that means one out of every seven or eight people would be a black. And that’s hardly “almost never see them”. But that’s not enough? OK, make it one out of every four or five. But to make them mostly black? Or solely black? Ridiculous.

As far as Jews, it never even occurred to me about whether they are showing Jews on ads - and I’m Jewish. Are you saying you can look at a poster and tell if the face is Jewish?

But you are diverting from what has happened here: something is really “off” in our society when companies think it is a good idea to exclude whites from their ads entirely and focus 100% on a 14% subset of the population.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As I said, there was ALWAYS a few blacks on posters, going back as far as I can remember. Then again, I grew up in DC.

And let’s say there wasn’t. The leftist answer is to say, basically, “so now YOU WHITES are being excluded“? That makes it OK to exclude whites - the MAJORITY population - with you? IOW, this isn’t about “equity” - the intentional exclusion of whites is for payback.

What really amuses me is when most of the ads in Phoenix have black people. They only make up about 6-7% of the population here, half of their percentage in the national population. You'd think if advertisers wanted to use a minority group instead of white people, they'd go with Hispanics, wouldn't you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Here’s a good example of how it is so silly. We are a diverse society. We are now finally showing it, recognizing that people want see people that look like themselves. If that is “woke”, so what? It also means merchants want to widen their customer base.

Target’s ads…a variety of ads, a variety of people…is that a problem?

View attachment 625233View attachment 625235View attachment 625236View attachment 625237View attachment 625238View attachment 625241View attachment 625242View attachment 625243View attachment 625239View attachment 625247View attachment 625248

You call that "a variety"? Where are the Hispanics? The Native Americans? The Asians?

 

[bripat9643]

Growing up in OKC the malls were all white and sparkling because blacks were not allowed to get out of their side of town.

How old are you, 85?

 

[bripat9643]

The horrors that you Real Americans have to endure!

What horrors to black people have to endure?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I never said it was OK to intentionally exclude blacks. I said it was OK when ads were mostly of whites because most of the country is white. That is what makes sense.

What doesn’t make sense is when most ads are of blacks, or even half of ads are of blacks, when they are only 14% of the population. and what makes even less sense is when ALL posters are of blacks. The only way it makes sense is to recognize the anti-white bias behind it.

That's what Coyote likes to do: divert off onto the argument she WISHES you'd made, so that she can dodge the argument you DID make, and that she can't answer. It's very rare that Coyote's responses have anything at all to do with the conversation. She believes what she's been told to believe, and she "knows" you believe what she's been told you believe, and she's incapable of hearing you say anything except what she "knows".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I grew up in the DC suburbs. I know what that area is like. I also remember when almost all the advertising was white, with tbe occasional token black. So now you are having a mini meltdown over one advertising poster showing a black person only but had no problem with posters showing whites only?

What's going on here is what's called subliminal messaging.

Last summer me and my neighbors were sitting in the backyard nice and peacefully. Some black guy pulled up to the stop light with his jungle music blaring so loud it could be heard six houses or more away. We had to stop talking until the light turned green and he left. Afterwards I told my neighbors "And the reason we don't want them living around us is the color of their skin." They broke out in laughter.

This was no oddity. In fact it happens all the time here. Blacks and whites still don't get along. Many blacks are loud, dirty and violent people and most whites are quite the opposite. So as I said, this sounds like subliminal messaging to accept blacks the way they are. Lisa took a conscious notice of this whereas a lot of people don't, but gets stored in the back of their mind.

Many big businesses are in bed with the Democrat party. They take their cues from them. You brought up Disney and that's a good example of what I'm talking about. Exclude the greeting "men and women--boys and girls" in response to Governor Desantis's new law. Do you really think that the owners of Disney came up with this idea themselves?

What went wrong with subliminal messaging back in the 70's is that people started to reject the products that was included in the message. I believe at some point they made a law against it. In any case they stopped using it. This is the same thing but instead of putting in one frame of a product in a different message, the message is overt; right in front of you. But the purpose is the same.

 

[Colin norris]

The problem is all you LibTards never think and you spam bullshit a week after you were already answered.

I've never learnt anything from what you think. I learn from how you think.

There's nothing to say I can't recycle it and get another hate filled jibe from fools like you. It works every time.

 

[NoNukes]

I’m retired. But I grew up in Washington, DC, and we always had blacks in school, at work, at restaurants, etc., and posters and ads in the stores always had SOME blacks. In fact, Washington DC was quite nice until 1968, when blacks burnt the place down after MLK was assassinated. It was at that point that I noticed a big rift between blacks and whites.

Yes, Dr King's death really changed things.