It’s a no brainer... in every sense. Diesel’s current campaign, “Be Stupid.” proves that a company can in fact be all that it promises.
It is, in a way, refreshingly shocking to see such honesty in advertising, but don’t be fooled, albeit disturbing, this is merely another upsetting instance of a company bending truth, remolding it to suit their need, i.e. sell products. Rest assured that the Diesel people spent huge sums of money on developing this campaign, armed with top notch advertising and market research people; it’s all about creating a buzz! And it works; people react to big bold ‘stupids’, they barely care for 'smarts'—all part of our obsession towards The Spectacle. As a friend, Paul A. Toth, pointed out: “It was obviously intended to be so blatant that it would attract comments from people like us... And to an extent, I feel like I'm feeding the beast by blogging about it.” Ditto. And although I hate to do so for that very reason, I nonetheless feel that some negative attention needs to be given to this campaign; this is evil propaganda at its worst.
That said, I hope you can appreciate that I refuse to post their link here on my blog, but all one has to do is type ‘Diesel’ and ‘stupid’ in any search engine...
Given our current financial times—the doom and gloom of the global credit crunch—it’s no surprise that retail operations are suffering setbacks, hard times, and plain ol’ bankruptcy. Stores that sell obscenely-priced ‘luxury’ goods are seeing a good part of their market reconsidering their need for such “stupid”, narcissistic items. Hard to justify spending in excess of $300 for $40 jeans when half of your expected-pension suddenly vanished and a majority of your stocks are worth more as toilet paper. And anyhow, your kids should be your priority, and after dressing them in the required-by-peer-pressure Diesel-Kids you’ve only got enough money left to buy yourself one pair of Diesel socks...
Despite repeated attempts by our financial markets to impart lessons and wisdom upon us, we once again chose to remain blind as we turned the page on a new millennium, our hope-filled, dream-fed ‘new start’ losing all glitter, quickly fizzing out before the decade could be spent.
So, once again, after a few brief years of 80’s reminiscent attitudes of over-abundance, self-indulgence, and the triumph of synthetic over the natural, we once more find ourselves experiencing yet another economic recession marked by yet another strong desire to return to a state of equilibrium. Whether we want it or not, very few can, literally, afford to toss caution to the wind in quite the same way that the boomer generation could for so long. Reasonable and sensible aren't “in”, our institutions have made these a “must”.
Globalization, overseas out-sourcing, the environment, the rising cost of grain, the list is long, the causes interweaving and complex, but loud are the alarms signalling a new dawn of unpredictable instability; from education to labour to retirement, nothing is sacred, guaranteed or protected. The equations of yesteryear no longer apply: one should now start investing for one’s retirement before one is even a part of the workforce; one can no longer expect that a company will take care of them in return for years of loyal service—a career lasts, on average, 6.5 years; heavy debt-load isn’t just a part of “starting out in life”, it’s a part of life, always; graduate studies may end up costing you a lot more than their potential, long-term payoff; saying blue-chip investments is now an oxymoron; kids are no longer our future, they’re yesterday’s profit margin and today’s borrowed equity... You get the gist.
The reality is there: the middle-class, though not, in my opinion, disappearing, is finding itself being redefined and repositioned in respect to a broadening lower-class and a strangely morphing anti-upper-class upper-class; this is a world-wide phenomena. As many absorb increasing variants of lower-class woes, a new class of overnight millionaires are popping up all over the globe... And Diesel’s ability to capitalise on these too-much-too-easily-too-soon types is what has kept them thriving, setting their collection of used-looking casual wear—the kind of clothes one would expect to find in a thrift store—in the same competitive league as all the well-known and lasting couture brands. Essentially, they’ve managed to become an internationally recognized and accessible status symbol.
However, here’s the conundrum: the rich may have been responsible for establishing Diesel’s reputation in the company’s younger years, but their numbers and ‘tastes’ can’t sustain the pre-credit-bubble-burst expanse Diesel had taken. And without credit, who can afford to drop several thousands for a new wardrobe? But the really wealthy (i.e. people for whom a $7000 dress merely represents the interest made while they stirred their coffee) don’t care at all for brands in the same way that the middle-class does. The really rich don’t “buy” into the American dream, they “live” the American dream. They buy the best, and outward labels aren’t a necessity; their ‘friends’ will know, don’t worry. It’s about exclusivity. And with their logo now available on a whole slew of products ranging from clothes to perfume to jewelry to home decor and cars too, all sold in over 5000 retail outlets in over 80 countries, Diesel isn’t all that exclusive anymore, nor can it be as high-quality—that kind of operation entails the implementation of low-cost large-output manufacturing techniques (indeed, most of Diesel's clothes are now made in, you guessed it: China! And at a fraction of retail prices). As a consequence, and albeit the outrageous prices, a brand like the one Diesel has become is entirely dependent on middle class insecurities to achieve and maintain the types of sales growth it has achieved in the last 15 years; last year the company grossed $766 million, slightly less than the $802.8 reported in 2008. Trends are predicted to continue.
This new campaign is clearly the company acting on this reality. After all, spending the equivalent of most people’s monthly rent or mortgage payment on one piece of clothing is only stupid if spending that kind of money implies financial planning and worrying. Well, recent events were a nice slap-in-the-face reminder that that implies all but a very thin slice of the stratification pie. Nearly everyone, especially the middle-class, is worried about their personal finances these days.
Is it a good time to bring up Jimmy Carter’s 1979 Malaise Speech? Here’s a relevant portion: “too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.” Hard to believe that was 40 years ago. But back then this was a warning; today, we're living the consequences.
If the current economic and social atmosphere is forcing members of Diesel’s key-market group to become increasingly cognizant of the fact that buying such products is senselessly stupid, Diesel figured that any attempts to counter these forces is wasted energy. And if, in the immortal words of Forest Gump, “Stupid is what stupid does,” then the Diesel folks took it upon themselves to redefine ‘stupid’ for us.
This is the part that I find incredibly despicable and insulting: rather than attempt to adjust to this shift and this new reality, Diesel is pretentious enough to give us all a big, "f*ck you, we won't change! Instead, we'll tell you what you are and we'll fool you into believing that it's a good thing by redefining stupid for you, since, after all, you're stupid enough to believe us, we've already sold you tons of merchandise!"
They really don't think too highly of their potential and actual customers, do they? The truth is simple: Diesel and all these similar brands rely on two things: stupidity and insecurity; it's their lifeblood. Because of these, people who can't really afford such products are nonetheless willing to put themselves in debt for "stupid" reasons. But 'stupid' is also the attitude that brought us to a time where we're willing to be sold a shiny new and pleasing concept of 'stupid'. Indeed, stupid is what stupid does.
For those who haven't seen the advert's accompanying texts and video (should we call that, "legal department imposed supplemental material"?), here is Diesel's campaign in a nutshell:
Stupid is good. Smart is bad.
Stupid is unique. Smart is humdrum.
Stupid is the new rebellion. Smart is authority.
Their ad bombards us with the idea that 'stupid' is "wild, passionate, unreasoned actions made from the heart," i.e. pleasing one's self with an impulsive, unjustifiably expensive purchase, and that 'smart' is boring, predictable, devoid of life and essence; smart is conformity, especially to oppressive kill-joy authority figures (i.e. what we usually expect of the “stupid” masses).
Stupid is about succumbing to false needs and wants, even if this means finding yourself on anti-depressants...
Yes, let’s celebrate obsessive, debt-inducing, vapid behaviour. Let's encourage self-serving, living-for-the-moment moments despite any consequences. And let's be proud to call ourselves stupid for a company that embodies all that is wrong with the world we currently live in.
What's next? New definitions for slut, thief, and murderer? Wake up! Other companies and governments are already working on those.
Try as they may, 'stupid’ will never become synonymous with ‘cool’ and ‘freedom’; at least not with smart people. Stupid is a perfectly good word to describe stupid behaviour... behaviour like, for example, holding a sign that says "carrots" in an attempt to convince people that potatoes taste like turnips.
And paying that kind of money on clothes, for nearly all of us, should still and always be seen as an act of stupidity, but stupid as in: 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Keep on clicking!
PDL
Side note: I’d like to call attention to the way the B was placed above the P (in Diesel's ad, top of post) as if to suggest BP Stupid. Coincidence given the Deepwater Horizon disaster and Diesel’s release of their revamped Fiat 500 cars in the UK?
© 2010, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.
On the morbid side of things, gambling website PaddyPower.com is taking bets on spill-related extinctions. [...] PaddyPower seems to be flip about the whole thing, but the site serves as a startling wake-up call--yes, this spill might be so bad that entire species die out as a result.
Read that startling bit on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on Fast Company’s Website. It’s disturbing on so many levels, initially; after careful consideration, is it really?
Paddy Power Site owners claim that they’re hoping their actions will help “highlight the recent gulf catastrophe,” and although few may buy that this was their initial goal, I think we all pretty much believe the same thing: that’s just a spin on a great but shameful opportunity.
But, amidst all the BP cover ups journalists are slowly unearthing, one aspect few had so far talked about is the potential and all too likely disappearance of a few species; the Kemp's Ridley turtle is at the top of the list... odds are (according to Gambling911.com, a gambling “news” website (that aims to sell the spin) – sorry, didn’t bother directly checking out the Paddy Power site, no time to waste). Albeit corporate-media news disseminators have placed much concern on the environmental effects, it did take an Irish-based betting Website to bring the idea of annihilation of certain species outside of activist and environmentalist circles.
So, I’ll admit that my first reaction to seeing this being turned into a gambling opportunity was total disgust, but my shock quickly dissolved into fulfilled-expectations of typical human behaviour--we humans are disconcerting, that's nothing new. Let's face it, people gamble on way worse things, some of which wouldn't exist without gambling. And weren't people placing bets some years back on whether or not Britney Spears would commit suicide? Paddy Power is also taking bets on who the next CEO will be, so honestly, in this case, what’s worse? That some crafty buggers found a way to profit from this and inadvertently played a role in raising awareness in unlikely circles, or gambling on such things? And what’s all of that in comparison to what’s actually happening? What I’m really afraid of is this:
Knowing what we humans are capable of, I wouldn’t be surprised to one day find out that these oil-related extinction bets had become so important and represented such potentially large sums of money for some who played a part in accelerating/assuring the extinction of some aquatic species of flora and fauna, especially some of the most unlikely ones, the ones that represented the more interesting returns... and I’m thinking the whole thing was cooked up by BP PR folks in an attempt to divert some public attention... and I’m thinking BP Investment dept. folks, placing bets and insuring them... and I’m thinking big winnings and earnings covering the material and financial cost of this disaster... and it does sound silly, but I’m trying to think up a logical reason as to why BP would act the way they are, why they would apply the solutions they are, and why they continue to obsess over the use of highly irritating toxic chemical dispersants (beyond the most obvious, i.e. dispersants keep the oil away from the surface and out of sight) which is also, at this point, the most damaging course of action for them... It blows my mind!
I bet you that going electric makes more sense now, doesn't it?
Keep on clicking!
PDL
© 2010, Pascal-Denis Lussier
Photo credit: pdl, all rights reserved
Yes, I know; it has been a while, again. Life... what can I tell you.
But be happy, in a way, for this subject pumped me full of productive anger... I really wanna talk about this Facebook group: "why test on animals when we have pedofiles in prison." [sic]
Please read all the way through before reacting to anything I have to say. I’m aware that the millions of people who have joined the group will probably hate my point of view, but hey! that’s nothing new. Common sense is not always popular opinion... And indeed, not enough people are looking at this topic objectively, willing to give it some serious thought. What I’m usually seeing are purely reactionary attitudes, and albeit “proper” and understandably justified, this is far from being the type of approach that, in the long run, is going to improve matters. In fact, it worsens things.
Firstly, what are we to make of the fact that every single post on the group page contains serious mistakes; the author can’t go more than ten words without making at least three grammatical/spelling errors. The creator continually makes jokes and excuses concerning his English skills, but so what?! Never heard of spellcheckers or dictionaries? Can’t take the time to do a bit of research? The subject isn't deserving? Well, that’s obvious...
Anyhow, the quality—at any level or angle—is proof enough that this whole thing was born out of an impulse to act on a sudden idea rather than careful planning in the hopes of instilling serious change; either that or it’s all a well-planned scam to, no doubt, extract info from as many members as possible. However there’s an authentic naïveté to the page that makes me think some teen geek cooked this up in between episodes of Family Guy, unwittingly allowing him his “fifteen minutes’ of Warhol-ian fame and that’s it! Could that explain the owner’s anonymity? Raises questions.
Unfortunately, s/he isn’t competent or dedicated enough to use the platform to direct serious discussions or establish goals. But the number of members sure seems important. Conversely, people have clicked, and can therefore feel good – now time to talk about the weather and post links to Garfield stuff.... The world will change! Yeah, right! Wake up, people!
Out of the thousands of posts and comments, less than 5% actually discuss the topic in any serious manner. The rest is spam, crap about the weather, comments about pets, empty hurrahs, and twisted Hallmark morals.
Believe it or not, I’ve read more interesting YouTube threads. Hard to beat! And last time I checked people had posted 148 “fan” pictures of their pets or favourite cartoon animal. WTF?!
As far as I’m concerned, over 1.6 million people (to date) have clicked on "like" without even giving the subject any serious thought. And their hate-filled comments confirm it. Because if they had, they wouldn't be joining such a group unless they're willing to admit to possessing latent Republican, gun-toting, cross-burning tendencies. And I honestly don’t think most people who have joined this group really arbour those feelings. It’s just that they’ve given this less thought than that ever important question: “what’s next on TV?”
This is the type of ignorant bandwagon-jumping that really irks me. And I know few like to hear what I have to say... and I can’t help my tone, sorry; I’m profoundly upset.
And why should I care so much? Perhaps because I DO care and honestly DO WANT and strive for a BETTER world. My morals aren’t just politically correct buzz phrases I spew out at cocktail parties, nor do I have a second set for when I’m with my drinkin’ buddies. I actually believe what I believe in, the philosophy I’ve laid out for myself built on a solid framework of logical arguments. So when I say that I don’t believe in violence, I don’t continually adapt elastic morals however way I feel just so they fit and are justified by my emotions, I act in accordance to my morals and contrast my emotions to them – if I have violent feelings, I’m outside my sphere of true beliefs, period. No footnotes. I’m not saying that provoked and necessary self-defence is in the wrong, I’m not gonna play Gumbi to any sudden attacker, but I REFUSE to condone or participate in any acts that arise out of aggressive attitudes leading to violence.
THE why test on animals when we have pedofiles in prison PAGE PROMOTES THAT, VIOLENCE. And it seeks to make it morally acceptable to do so by promoting utilitarian hypocrisy; it’s clear that the 1.6 million people who joined don’t truly care about animals nor, for that matter, the environment. “Why test on animals” but who cares about the daily abuse done to millions of chicken, beef, lamb et al. on “meat” farms across the world, right? Wonder how many vegetarians are in the lot?
So yes, bravo. So let’s treat mentally ill people like sub-human monsters worth less than pet-worthy animals—already a reason why matters are getting progressively worse—but let’s do so legally.
How typically human: a tortured, suffering soul only deserves sympathy if the “trouble” in question doesn’t involve a taboo that falls too far outside of acceptable societal mores. We tolerate and even encourage any compulsion that can be “safely” marketed and successfully exploited, and yet we choose to be totally indifferent towards, condemn, and opt for violent solutions when the side effect of all we tolerate manifests itself in sickening ways. Destroying pedophiles by the time they can be categorized as such is senseless. It’s trying to resolve a problem by attacking the result, not the cause. If you’ve got a process that produces faulty product, you don’t just let it produce more faulty items so you can toss them in the garbage, you get the ‘system’ fixed.
Why can’t people have the same basic consideration towards ‘faulty’ humans? Why are so few people willing to put their energy into truly productive, non-vengeful and “love”-filled solutions?
Different thing when you're a victim or the parent of a victim, of course; anger and hatred is more than normal, provided it's targeted at the perpetrator, and not, as a consequence, at an entire class, race, or gender... currently, this is all too often the result of our uncaring attitude. But from those not directly involved? What is their motivation for wanting such destructive, equally violent vengeance against convicted pedophiles? I tend to think this is linked to some sort of collective blood lust combined with easy scapegoating because torturing those who have reached the 'acting-out' stage does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent further sufferers, be they potential pedophiles or victims.
Not an easy thing to do, but think "big" picture!
But we're too busy pretending to believe in some religion or other while we go buy more Calvin Klein and American Apparel stuff (you’ve seen their ads, you know what I mean) as those who can afford it go to Thailand and Taiwan and any other place teeming with sleazy tourists seeking to capture someone else’s youth for a few welcomed and tolerated bucks! And let’s fight for our right to view the lewdest acts possible within a few clicks, and our well-earned right to buy dildos on any corner or visit a peep-show at any hour. Let’s celebrate the stars that sing of sex as they grab their groins in front of our kids. And why don’t we let our kids buy those glossy sexually-charged, ad-packed magazines that teach the ABC’s of empty principles and let’s let them absorb the Hollywood bimbo values and ultra-violence dictated by the next gaming trend and CGI effects... Let’s pump them full of synthetic, sugar and fat-filled crap that alters their minds. Let’s reward our girls with botox and implants and let’s not talk to our kids about GHB and Ecstasy... or anything, really. Let’s blame everything and everyone else but ourselves when kids are now having consensual sexual relations at age 12 and going to blow-job parties by 13. And let’s not question why there are more types of recorded sexual perversions than there are educational TV shows.
Let’s make a big deal about a boob on the loose on prime time TV while Hustler is clearly available in any quaint convenience store and everyone has access to shows like “Sex in the City”. Let’s tolerate all the adverts and all the ways by which we are all asked to objectify others and think sex, sex, sex, but let’s make sure we castrate any male who now dares to openly exhibit or discuss his hyper-stimulated natural urges. Prostitution is bad but it’s okay when college girls are doing it, they’re merely taking advantage of a situation...
Just shake your head and don’t forget to close your blinds when some kid is screaming down the street. Phew! Need a full-body massage?
And let’s not pay attention to any of that... Easier to spit on a troubled mind because such behaviour is beyond our scope of comprehension... or compassion. And no, I’m not saying we have to forgive them and be honky-dory with such foul behaviour. Violence towards children sickens me. But I want a change. Read on...
It’s all a vicious cycle. Remember this (for some reason few people ever mention it or seem to take it into account): nearly all pedophiles (not including the touristy kind—no stats for those; speaking of self-confessed or captured offenders) claimed to have been physically and/or sexually abused when they were young. Most cases include siblings (highest), parents and relatives, neighbours, etc., and rarely are the offenders complete strangers to their victim.
Now, if pedophiles are monsters who were once the victims of monsters who were once... How the hell is any plan suggesting we legally treat them like monsters going to change matters, not to mention that its very existence reinforces counter-productive attitudes. Easy to want to experiment on some sicko in some other Province or State, but what about when the sicko is a member of your family and your own actions may have had a direct impact on their behaviour? How far are you willing to dig into your own family secrets and closets?
We create these sick individuals. Pedophiles are the result of human folly, and the only way we seem to react towards this issue is with more human folly?!
When are people going to stop pretending we don’t all play a role in perpetuating and even increasing this type of behaviour? And honestly, do you really think pedophiles are happy being pedophiles?!?! Is anyone happy with their diseased mind, knowing that society’s unwillingness to understand and openly address the problem means they’ll never have a healthy, normal life?
Granted, pedophiles represent the worst of humankind--our grotesque flaws and failings personified. They are a big part of our collective shame, and so, in typical human fashion towards anything that makes us uncomfortable, we’d rather bitch about the aftermath than assume responsibility and play a positive part in bringing about change. People prefer to dump puss and venom on these people. Didn’t people react the same way towards schizophrenia and similar illnesses some years back? Didn’t we drill holes in their head hoping evil spirits would be released? Until we finally gained enough wisdom to develop lobotomies, that is...
Seems to me this group page suggests a return to such practices.
Again, I’m not trying to convince anyone that we should shake their hands, pat them on the back, and offer up a friendly nod, or that we should abolish all jail terms for sexually-based crimes. I’m encouraging understanding and an openness to see beyond the consequences so we can attack the cause.
If society adopted a less destructive, more responsible and proactive attitude towards the problem, perhaps it would cease being such a troubling taboo that does nothing more than create ticking time-bombs. Perhaps then pedophiles would be more open to help, to programs, as well as participating in controlled means of channeling their compulsions towards acceptable but equally gratifying methods of satisfaction instead of fearing for their lives, bottling uncontrollable emotions to an explosion point... No doubt, everyone would be willing to invest more time and money in order to study the problem in more depth and develop new solutions if all were able to see pedophilia for the devastating disorder it is, instead of blindly unleashing so much mis-directed anger and hatred.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, this includes victims. In such a world, they’d certainly be more willing to report and speak of any victimization; to seek help and to externalize and free themselves of the shame and the guilt that allows their victimizers to manipulate them, which then festers unattended until it produces the unstable monster whose life is, according to group members, worth less than any animal (except the chickens!). After a few generations, surely the matter would improve.
And if all parents were a bit more present and interested in their kid’s lives, who knows?
And imagine if all played a part in assuring that everyone has access to a basic level of quality education.
And what if we sought to resolve hunger and poverty and all forms of injustices that usually breed hatred and violence?
What if we took it upon ourselves to eliminate violence by refusing to dole out violence?
What if we finally decided to be honest with ourselves and stopped justifying our own contributing attitudes and actions and decided to play anything but a passive, judgmental role in the face of our modern woes?
What if we treated all humans as humans?
So when all you could do was spit out fruitless hate and blame upon hearing of some pedophile’s vile acts, what were you doing for the victim? And when the pedophile you’re willing to torture was just a wee child victim, what plans were you willing to partake in to help him avoid becoming another victimizer, another statistic? With torture? With empty clicks?
And no, I’m not for animal testing! There’s another solution for that too.
In any case, in any situation, ignorance is the gateway to violence.
Please, those having joined the group, all I ask is that you give the subject some serious thought.
Of interest:
Child Molester Statistics
Keep on clicking!
PDL
© 2010, Pascal-Denis Lussier
.
