Connect with us

clownworld

Volkswagen Commercial Banned in UK Because it Shows Woman Caring For a Baby

“The ad presented gender stereotypes in way that was likely to cause harm.”

Published

on

A Volkswagen commercial has been banned in the UK for violating “gender stereotypes” because it showed a woman caring for a baby.

Yes, really.

The ad shows a scene of a woman and a man in a tent on a cliff face, two male astronauts floating in a spaceship and a male para-athlete with a prosthetic leg doing the long jump.

At the end of the clip, a woman is seen sat on a bench next to a pram.

The commercial was banned by the UK Advertising Standard Authority (ASA) after just three people complained, with the ASA asserting that it violated gender stereotyping rules.

“By juxtaposing images of men in extraordinary environments and carrying out adventurous activities with women who appeared passive or engaged in a stereotypical care-giving role, we considered that the ad directly contrasted stereotypical male and female roles and characteristics in a manner that gave the impression that they were exclusively associated with one gender,” said the ASA. “We concluded that the ad presented gender stereotypes in way that was likely to cause harm and therefore breached the Code.”

Volkswagen tried to explain the meaning behind the ad, but it was to no avail.

“The core message of the ad was centred on the ability of the human spirit to adapt to challenges and change brought about by circumstances. They illustrated that through a number of different scenarios featuring various characters so that as diverse an audience as possible would be able to identify with the message.”

“They included the final scene of the woman in the park as a relatable example of adaptation to change, as they believed that welcoming a newborn into the family was a life changing experience that would be shared by many viewers, regardless of gender. The scene served a secondary purpose of illustrating the reduction of engine noise in an electric vehicle.”

Meanwhile, ads that reinforce negative gender stereotypes about men are still perfectly fine.

Ads showing an attractive woman in a bikini are banned on the London Underground, but ads promoting the homophobic country of Brunei which stones gay people to death are also fine.

The ASA also banned an ad featuring a sexy female mechanic after a single complaint because it could cause “offense” and was sexually suggestive.

So ads showing woman engaged in typically feminine roles are forbidden and ads showing women engaged in typically masculine roles are forbidden.

Clown world.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

clownworld

South Dakota Spends Nearly $500,000 on Anti-Meth Ad Campaign With Tagline “Meth – We’re On it”

Yes, really.

Published

on

South Dakota’s Department of Social Services has spent nearly half a million dollars on an anti-meth ad campaign with the tagline “Meth. We’re On It.”

No, this is not The Onion.

“The campaign’s motto features the phrase, “Meth. We’re on it,” over an outline of South Dakota, and the ad and posters feature people of differing in ages and races saying, “I’m on meth,” reports the Argus Leader.

A video shows Governor Kristi Noem telling the camera, “I’m on meth,” before she explains that “on it” means “on the case of meth.”

TV ads, posters, billboards and a website will feature the motto at a cost of $449,000 that was paid to Broadhead Co., a marketing and ad agency in Minneapolis.

The outlay compares with $1 million which has been set aside for meth treatment services and more than $730,000 for school-based meth prevention programming.

Social Services Secretary Laurie Gill called the campaign “inclusive and empowering,” but respondents on Twitter were not so enthusiastic.

“Apparently no one thought this through,” commented one.

“It’s so bad and I know it’s a serious issue but WHO APPROVED THIS?” asked another.

One respondent said they were aware that the tagline was meant to apply to meth addicts being refreshingly honest, “But having a clip of your governor saying I’m on meth is not exactly genius marketing.”

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

clownworld

“Only Black Person” in Restaurant Boasts About Making White People Uncomfortable, Faces Twitter Backlash

“I’ll take things that never happened for $500 Alex.”

Published

on

A man claiming to be the “only black person” in a restaurant boasted about making white people uncomfortable before facing a Twitter backlash.

The man, whose Twitter handle is @HoodProfett, posted a video of himself smiling while sat at a table.

“I was the only black person at this boujee ass restaurant and the whites were so uncomfortable. The power we have,” he tweeted.

Despite the tweet receiving nearly 150,000 likes, many of the most popular responses were not very enthusiastic.

“Same energy,” tweeted Ian Miles Cheong, with a link to a meme about someone with no friends.

“They’re staring cause he looking at his phone all weird but clearly not on the phone with anyone,” joked another.

“Them people was just eating they food bruh,” commented another user.

“I’ll take things that never happened for $500 Alex,” remarked another.

The memes came in thick and fast.

After the backlash, the man claimed, “The amount of non black + white folks interacting with this has become a bit concerning. So I’m muting this.”

He did find space, however, to list his cashapp handle so people could send him money (for what reason, God only knows).

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

clownworld

Globalist Magazine ‘The Economist’ Tells Plebs to Eat Bugs

Live on an insect diet like people in war-torn hellhole Congo to ‘save the planet’.

Published

on

Globalist magazine ‘The Economist’ published an article encouraging people to live on a diet of bugs like citizens in the conflict-torn Congo in order to save the planet.

Entitled ‘Why eating bugs is so popular in Congo’, the piece champions the consumption of caterpillars, crickets and grasshoppers as being “richer in protein than beef or fish.”

“Others around the world should catch up,” writes the unnamed author. “Bug farming takes up less land, requires less food and does less damage to the environment than meat or fish farming.”

“Hunting insects is easy, too. Anyone can wander into the forest—or, indeed, to the airport—and gather caterpillars, ants and grasshoppers,” he adds before admitting that “The wrong variety of insect can poison consumers.”

Eating bugs being popular in the Congo may have something to to with the fact that the DROC is a a conflict-torn, corrupt, politically unstable hellhole with a barely functioning economy from which hundreds of thousands have fled while millions more are at risk of malnutrition and starvation.

Just a thought.

The irony of the Economist telling people to eat bugs is pretty thick given that its own readership, which largely comprises of wealthy privileged elitists, would never even consider doing such a thing.

Once again, it’s very much a case of do as we say not as we do.

Eating bugs has been heavily promoted by cultural institutions and the media in recent months because people are being readied to accept drastically lower standards of living under disastrous global ‘Green New Deal’ programs.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

Trending