Art is in the eye of the beholder. But hatred is always People do to kill creativity
I’m all about diversity and choice. But you’re never going to convince me that destroying art is good because people have a choice to do that. I have no issue with gambling or anything else in your list that I personally find objectionable. Destruction of beautiful artwork is bad and everyone should find it bad. Objectively bad.Absolutely see and respect your comments; But there no need to cancel it so I disagree on the last point entirely.
Should we cancel gambling, adult content, firearms, food or even products because they offend you?
No. Society is about diversity and choice.
Cancelling something because it offends a minority is cancerous to society, tolerance and learning.
No Apple did not do that, the faux outrage crowd created that narrative and you and others seem to have validated it. People need to grow up and not give in to the foolishness.Again, I’m not outraged or offended. And yes, that’s exactly what Apple did. Unintentionally, but it is what they did. Talking about “faux outrage” is the actual trollish thing people should avoid IMO.
No Apple did not do that, the faux outrage crowd created that narrative and you and others seem to have validated it. People need to grow up and not give in to the foolishness.
The ad was brilliant, it is time to stock up on tissue for all the people who are crying.
Speaking of Hug Grant, I just watched Jerry Seinfeld’s Unfrosted on Netflix—silly movie but had a few laughs—and I thought Hugh Grant kind of stole the show. He was hilarious. Usually he plays more or less the same character, but in this one he was very different. I almost didn’t think it was him because of that and because I haven’t seen him in anything in ages. Anyway, I was impressed.I actually thought Hugh Grant cashing a paycheck to play an Oompa-Loompa (knocking Michael Caine's shark bounty into second place) was the destruction of the human experience so it shows how much I know.
No, and I see you like to make up your own false narratives for the faux outrage to go with the trolling, or have comprehension issues.Your contention is that Apple intended to alienate the target market for the device? Seems like a weird conclusion to reach if that is in fact what you’re saying.
Besides, your repetition of the false “faux outrage” smear gives your game away.
No, and I see you like to make up your own false narratives for the faux outrage to go with the trolling, or have comprehension issues.
But making the discussion about "offense" gives the keyboard warriors a way to avoid the bigger issues which those criticizing the commercial raise.Offense isn’t the issue.
Fake indignation over a trumped up charge? No one was offended. How many times do we have to point this out? 100 times? 1,000 times? Offense isn’t the issue.
I like how people claim on here that no one was offended or outraged when it only takes a simple 5 second search online to prove that wrong. 🤣
Are they though?like a form of art, this ad is. viewers are mad for silliest reason