The Culture Wars | Nike's Kaepernick Ad Campaign

[That Aud Smell]

The national political parties have long been trending towards extremes to mobilize their base(s) and energize the electorate. I think it's a fair point that the Democrats were on the leading edge of this tactic (identity politics, I guess?), and that Trump's GOP reflects the right making its own move within the culture wars. 

Talking head pundits from differing political alignments appear on TV and mostly yell at each other, or make faces of disbelief and disgust.

So, our political leaders have been fanning the flames of division for a while now, with the hope that the result will be their party taking a seat, a majority, what have you.

When the Nike ad campaign came on line, it really stopped me in my tracks. I'd long assumed that for-profit ventures, like Nike, would prefer to stay out of the culture war fray. Because they want everyone's money. This was played out in a microcosm when Deep South Taco in Buffalo got into a political p1ssing match on social media about a year ago or so (for supporting Sheriff Tim Howard).

My wife was encouraged when Nike's online sales jumped 30% or whatever. Because, ostensibly, this means that there's some majority of the country (or maybe just active consumers?) who support the political position Nike staked out.

But I found myself despairing. I have all sorts of family members who've been posting all sorts of take-downs of Nike, Kaep, etc. on their social media feeds. I've muted most of them. But I love them all. I love them all (or at least try mightily to love them) because they're my family. I have an in-law whose politics are really backward and fairly repugnant. But there are many ties that bind the two of us.

I prefer to focus on the ties that bind, rather than the forces that serve to separate and divide.

But now that Capital has arrived, now that the Markets are in the mix, I don't think the situation stands much hope. The country will be divided, irrevocably.

I think that Artificial Intelligence will soon play a role in this, too. Augmented reality devices will allow us to avoid, and never meet or interact with, people with whom we disagree.

[LTS]

There's a lot here.... probably too much for me to adequately share my thoughts.

Both from what Nike has done as well as where the world is going.

Good food for thought... gonna chew on it a bit.

[Hank]

3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

The national political parties have long been trending towards extremes to mobilize their base(s) and energize the electorate. I think it's a fair point that the Democrats were on the leading edge of this tactic (identity politics, I guess?), and that Trump's GOP reflects the right making its own move within the culture wars. 

Talking head pundits from differing political alignments appear on TV and mostly yell at each other, or make faces of disbelief and disgust.

So, our political leaders have been fanning the flames of division for a while now, with the hope that the result will be their party taking a seat, a majority, what have you.

When the Nike ad campaign came on line, it really stopped me in my tracks. I'd long assumed that for-profit ventures, like Nike, would prefer to stay out of the culture war fray. Because they want everyone's money. This was played out in a microcosm when Deep South Taco in Buffalo got into a political p1ssing match on social media about a year ago or so (for supporting Sheriff Tim Howard).

My wife was encouraged when Nike's online sales jumped 30% or whatever. Because, ostensibly, this means that there's some majority of the country (or maybe just active consumers?) who support the political position Nike staked out.

But I found myself despairing. I have all sorts of family members who've been posting all sorts of take-downs of Nike, Kaep, etc. on their social media feeds. I've muted most of them. But I love them all. I love them all (or at least try mightily to love them) because they're my family. I have an in-law whose politics are really backward and fairly repugnant. But there are many ties that bind the two of us.

I prefer to focus on the ties that bind, rather than the forces that serve to separate and divide.

But now that Capital has arrived, now that the Markets are in the mix, I don't think the situation stands much hope. The country will be divided, irrevocably.

I think that Artificial Intelligence will soon play a role in this, too. Augmented reality devices will allow us to avoid, and never meet or interact with, people with whom we disagree.

Damn, that sucks. I'm fortunate that nobody in my small bubble of family and friends cares about Kaep or the Nike ad. I hope you are able to get through it without it fraying any relationships. 

[That Aud Smell]

Soon enough, the brands that you wear, the national chain restaurants you patronize, the car that you drive, etc. will pronounce to the world who and what you are.

I realize this is already true to some extent. But I think the lines are going to become much clearer -- and the corporations themselves are going to facilitate the process of branding themselves in alignment with certain segments of society.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

Soon enough, the brands that you wear, the national chain restaurants you patronize, the car that you drive, etc. will pronounce to the world who and what you are.

I realize this is already true to some extent. But I think the lines are going to become much clearer -- and the corporations themselves are going to facilitate the process of branding themselves in alignment with certain segments of society.

I hope you're wrong. Nobody in my circles cares where you eat or what you where. To be honest, we never talk about, nor much care about, politics. The only place I ever discuss politics is on these message boards. My sister's and I don't even know who each other voted for. I don't know. Maybe we are just blissfully ignorant. It works for us. 

[Eleven]

On 9/10/2018 at 5:36 PM, That Aud Smell said:

Soon enough, the brands that you wear, the national chain restaurants you patronize, the car that you drive, etc. will pronounce to the world who and what you are.

I realize this is already true to some extent. But I think the lines are going to become much clearer -- and the corporations themselves are going to facilitate the process of branding themselves in alignment with certain segments of society.

I have heard that New Balance is now associated with white, racist men.

This bothers me.  First, I always have liked NB shoes.  They used to be made in the US for a fair wage.  Even now, though, while NB manufactures overseas and presumably pays pennies to its workers, at least it isn't doing so while simultaneously paying millions to stars (who already are millionaires) to promote their brand.  That's the main reason I've always tried to avoid Nike, and Adidas, and Reebok, and any other brands that pay a lot to star athletes.

[That Aud Smell]

32 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I have heard that New Balance is now associated with white, racist men.

This bothers me.  First, I always have liked NB shoes.  They used to be made in the US for a fair wage.  Even now, though, while NB manufactures overseas and presumably pays pennies to its workers, at least it isn't doing so while simultaneously paying millions to stars (who already are millionaires) to promote their brand.  That's the main reason I've always tried to avoid Nike, and Adidas, and Reebok, and any other brands that pay a lot to star athletes.

Is that true? 

Damn. When I was a young turk, we listened to Tribe Called Quest and "sport[ed] New Balance sneakers to avoid a narrow path."

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by That Aud Smell

[darksabre]

On 9/10/2018 at 1:31 PM, That Aud Smell said:

The national political parties have long been trending towards extremes to mobilize their base(s) and energize the electorate. I think it's a fair point that the Democrats were on the leading edge of this tactic (identity politics, I guess?), and that Trump's GOP reflects the right making its own move within the culture wars. 

Talking head pundits from differing political alignments appear on TV and mostly yell at each other, or make faces of disbelief and disgust.

So, our political leaders have been fanning the flames of division for a while now, with the hope that the result will be their party taking a seat, a majority, what have you.

When the Nike ad campaign came on line, it really stopped me in my tracks. I'd long assumed that for-profit ventures, like Nike, would prefer to stay out of the culture war fray. Because they want everyone's money. This was played out in a microcosm when Deep South Taco in Buffalo got into a political p1ssing match on social media about a year ago or so (for supporting Sheriff Tim Howard).

My wife was encouraged when Nike's online sales jumped 30% or whatever. Because, ostensibly, this means that there's some majority of the country (or maybe just active consumers?) who support the political position Nike staked out.

But I found myself despairing. I have all sorts of family members who've been posting all sorts of take-downs of Nike, Kaep, etc. on their social media feeds. I've muted most of them. But I love them all. I love them all (or at least try mightily to love them) because they're my family. I have an in-law whose politics are really backward and fairly repugnant. But there are many ties that bind the two of us.

I prefer to focus on the ties that bind, rather than the forces that serve to separate and divide.

But now that Capital has arrived, now that the Markets are in the mix, I don't think the situation stands much hope. The country will be divided, irrevocably.

I think that Artificial Intelligence will soon play a role in this, too. Augmented reality devices will allow us to avoid, and never meet or interact with, people with whom we disagree.

Here's the thing. I know it's become a meme on the right about the "tolerant left hurr hurr" suddenly being no longer willing to tolerate conservative staples like racism, xenophobia, bigotry, white collar crime, fascism, etc. But there is a ring of truth to that meme. Myself and plenty of my more liberal friends and family have been left with no other choice but to no longer tolerate various speech, actions, etc. perpetrated by longtime friends, family, etc. 

Let's talk about the bolded, because I think it provides a good example. At what point do you as a person decide that your dumb uncle pull tab and his racist nonsense is no longer something you can abide just because he's family? At what point do you decided that your family members who have trash political opinions are actually harmful and maybe even straight up bad people? At what point is love not enough? 

In my opinion society has reached a breaking point where "the ties that bind" are going to start failing because, to be perfectly honest, only one side is still putting the effort in to maintaining those ties, and it's not the right. It's not your Trumper uncle who hates PC libtards. He's not trying and never has been. So when do you stop tolerating his BS and just cut him out?

I think a lot of brands are going to start making the same choices. A brand like Nike seems to understand who buys the bulk of its product and has decided that alienating uncle pulltab who only buys a pair of Air Monarchs every 4 years is not an issue for them. 

After all, businesses are people, right? 
 

[That Aud Smell]

19 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Let's talk about the bolded, because I think it provides a good example. At what point do you as a person decide that your dumb uncle pull tab and his racist nonsense is no longer something you can abide just because he's family? At what point do you decided that your family members who have trash political opinions are actually harmful and maybe even straight up bad people? At what point is love not enough? 

I'm not sure when that point comes. I suppose it varies for everyone. For the people I'm talking about, we mostly don't talk politics. Every now and then a surplus of beers will prompt someone to say something, but mostly we avoid the subject. Instead, we talk about stuff like getting my mother-in-law's deck fixed (it's sagging from some kind of underground erosion issue), what joint trip the young cousins want to plan for next year (a tradition), baseball, football, and so on. Oh, and there are a number of rootsy Americana acts on which we can agree when it comes to listening to music. When I feel the need to, I communicate my views in ways that are perhaps more oblique.

Oh, and love is always enough. Sometimes we falter, break down, or quit as its messengers, but love itself never fails.

[Hank]

2 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I'm not sure when that point comes. I suppose it varies for everyone. For the people I'm talking about, we mostly don't talk politics. Every now and then a surplus of beers will prompt someone to say something, but mostly we avoid the subject. Instead, we talk about stuff like getting my mother-in-law's deck fixed (it's sagging from some kind of underground erosion issue), what joint trip the young cousins want to plan for next year (a tradition), baseball, football, and so on. Oh, and there are a number of rootsy Americana acts on which we can agree when it comes to listening to music. When I feel the need to, I communicate my views in ways that are perhaps more oblique.

Oh, and love is always enough. Sometimes we falter, break down, or quit as its messengers, but love itself never fails.

Good man

[darksabre]

11 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I'm not sure when that point comes. I suppose it varies for everyone. For the people I'm talking about, we mostly don't talk politics. Every now and then a surplus of beers will prompt someone to say something, but mostly we avoid the subject. Instead, we talk about stuff like getting my mother-in-law's deck fixed (it's sagging from some kind of underground erosion issue), what joint trip the young cousins want to plan for next year (a tradition), baseball, football, and so on. Oh, and there are a number of rootsy Americana acts on which we can agree when it comes to listening to music. When I feel the need to, I communicate my views in ways that are perhaps more oblique.

Oh, and love is always enough. Sometimes we falter, break down, or quit as its messengers, but love itself never fails.

Hm. I'm not so sure. 

Let's take a friend of mine. She comes from a very conservative Catholic family. She is gay. Her family has essentially disowned her because of this. She would certainly prefer that not to be the case, but love does not appear to be winning out on the other end of that binding tie. So what is my friend to do? Continue investing emotional capital into a one-sided relationship, or cut her family loose as they would have her cut loose from them?

Sometimes there aren't enough bandaids to cover the deeper wounds in relationships. Nothing personal against you, but it appears that for you and your family, there are currently enough bandaids. 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, darksabre said:

Here's the thing. I know it's become a meme on the right about the "tolerant left hurr hurr" suddenly being no longer willing to tolerate conservative staples like racism, xenophobia, bigotry, white collar crime, fascism, etc. But there is a ring of truth to that meme. Myself and plenty of my more liberal friends and family have been left with no other choice but to no longer tolerate various speech, actions, etc. perpetrated by longtime friends, family, etc. 

 

There is no need to tolerate the intolerable.  That's why there's a word for it.

[darksabre]

22 minutes ago, Eleven said:

There is no need to tolerate the intolerable.  That's why there's a word for it.

Right. And I think a lot of conservatives would argue, vociferously, that they are under no obligation to tolerate certain things regardless of familial binding ties, love, etc.  

The trick is that liberals often don't exercise their prerogative to do the same thing, and when they do the jokes come out about the "hur hur tolerant left" and "snowflakes".

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, on the one way street of tolerance. At least from where I'm sitting. 

[That Aud Smell]

4 hours ago, darksabre said:

Hm. I'm not so sure. 

Let's take a friend of mine. She comes from a very conservative Catholic family. She is gay. Her family has essentially disowned her because of this. She would certainly prefer that not to be the case, but love does not appear to be winning out on the other end of that binding tie. So what is my friend to do? Continue investing emotional capital into a one-sided relationship, or cut her family loose as they would have her cut loose from them?

Sometimes there aren't enough bandaids to cover the deeper wounds in relationships. Nothing personal against you, but it appears that for you and your family, there are currently enough bandaids. 

I think you’re taking too narrow a view of love, and you’re probably misinterpreting what I’m saying. No one is bound to tie themselves to people who actively hate, reject, or abuse them. But love can and will still prevail over such hate, if you let it.

[That Aud Smell]

4 hours ago, Eleven said:

There is no need to tolerate the intolerable.  That's why there's a word for it.

That sounds like a path to division. Which, go for it. That seems to be de rigueur.

[Sabel79]

2 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

That sounds like a path to division. Which, go for it. That seems to be de rigueur.

At what point is it no longer virtuous to effectively condone the destructive behavior of a sizable minority because it's easier?  Division is not ideal, but some things can not be suborned.  We've seen it play out over and over again in history.  It never ends well.  

[That Aud Smell]

6 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

At what point is it no longer virtuous to effectively condone the destructive behavior of a sizable minority because it's easier?  Division is not ideal, but some things can not be suborned.  We've seen it play out over and over again in history.  It never ends well.  

I’m not saying destructive behavior should be condoned.

[LTS]

15 hours ago, darksabre said:

Right. And I think a lot of conservatives would argue, vociferously, that they are under no obligation to tolerate certain things regardless of familial binding ties, love, etc.  

The trick is that liberals often don't exercise their prerogative to do the same thing, and when they do the jokes come out about the "hur hur tolerant left" and "snowflakes".

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, on the one way street of tolerance. At least from where I'm sitting. 

You can turn your argument around and replace left and right and end up in the same place.  Intolerance is intolerance, period.  Neither the left nor right have copyright over it. They are both prone to being insufferable garbage that plague the Earth.

Snowflakes exist universally.

As for when you cut off a family member?  It's when they are no longer interested in trying to be a better person in the world and are more interested in how they feel over how others feel. In your friend's case it's clear the parents are insufferable garbage. You can't choose your family, you can only choose to associate with them. Good friends can do anything family can do for you. While you may share genetic code with your parents and other family members, the truth is you share similar genetic code with everyone. 

So, if your family is insufferable, then don't suffer by them. 

Ultimately, I think the world doesn't need more tolerance. It needs more acceptance. I can tolerate someone eating fish in the office, but I accept that a person is a certain race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Accept what cannot be changed, tolerate what can, and work to be better people.  The only intolerable people in this world are those that would seek to take away my personal freedom (or the personal freedom of others) and not be open to changing their behavior.

[josie]

Cut off because of politics. It's a very individual matter. Friends/acquaintances- I can cut those off fairly easily, though I endeavor not to until it's reached an unreasonable point- I sometimes find value in seeing "the other side". But family... thats tougher, right?

My uncle is, by all societal measures, a great man. He is a millionaire. He is a nuclear physicist. He travels around the world. He owns an old 1920s mansion, but drives old beat up cars/wears drab clothing because he doesn't like flash. His SO is of another race. His home is studded with curiosities and treasures from a myriad of cultures from every continent. He is worldly, he is well read, he is handy/can fix anything.

He is, without a doubt, one of the most close minded, racist, conservative, Rush Limbaugh spewing, hatred-driven people I know. His sons (my age) are estranged, one is an addict, the other missing. "Didn't pull themselves up by their bootstraps- fu*k 'em" is his stance. He wasn't always this way- the last decade or so has really turned him. But he is my uncle- I've known him since birth. I see him at holidays. I listen to his travel stories, and accept his gifts. My mother (fiercely liberal) and he maintain a relationship where she takes care of all of his stateside affairs when he's abroad. He responds to this by insulting her repeatedly for her views, telling her "you'll grow up eventually, all smart people become conservatives when they get older, you'll stop being a doormat someday" (she's 3 years his junior). He will sit in front of me and bring up LGBT issues and summarily bash them, use slurs, etc, then look me in the eyes and go "You're an art kid, know any of those tranny freaks sneaking into the wrong bathroom? Hope you don't become some attention craving lesbian!"

I haven't completely cut him out of my life. But I do avoid the man. I haven't gone to TN to visit my family there- I know what they think of women, of liberal mindsets, and folk. I have enough crap bombarding me from every angle in my life that I don't think adding the anxiety of trying to have a good relationship with these people is worth it. 

I don't see it being realistic to try to be some saintlike listener, forgiving and forgetting each transgression in the name of Family. Like my listening to his bile and gently offering counterpoints only to be steamrolled is going to somehow make the world a better place or strengthen our bond? No- instead it fills me with reactionary anger, which then spills out and only serves to deepen the void between us, as people and ideologically. Sparing contact- for politeness- seems the correct road sometimes. In most cases in my life like this, it's almost more bullying than anything resembling a political debate. He enjoys making people feel small, and his state-backed red rhetoric has become his favorite weapon. 

The platitudes of love and family cannot solve that which is real- and that is a lack of respect which could ideally span ideological rifts.

Fu*k love solves all- to have love you have to participate. 

[Hank]

Josie - "pull yourself up by your bootstaps". There's something to this. It's not a bad motto to have in life. You seem to use it in a disparaging context. It's not code for being a bad person. I'm sorry for you that that seems to be your experience. Just my two cents, which, admittedly, isn't worth very much. 

[SwampD]

5 hours ago, LTS said:

You can turn your argument around and replace left and right and end up in the same place.  Intolerance is intolerance, period.  Neither the left nor right have copyright over it. They are both prone to being insufferable garbage that plague the Earth.

Snowflakes exist universally.

As for when you cut off a family member?  It's when they are no longer interested in trying to be a better person in the world and are more interested in how they feel over how others feel. In your friend's case it's clear the parents are insufferable garbage. You can't choose your family, you can only choose to associate with them. Good friends can do anything family can do for you. While you may share genetic code with your parents and other family members, the truth is you share similar genetic code with everyone. 

So, if your family is insufferable, then don't suffer by them. 

Ultimately, I think the world doesn't need more tolerance. It needs more acceptance. I can tolerate someone eating fish in the office, but I accept that a person is a certain race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Accept what cannot be changed, tolerate what can, and work to be better people.  The only intolerable people in this world are those that would seek to take away my personal freedom (or the personal freedom of others) and not be open to changing their behavior.

While that is true, in my experience, I would say that 90% of the time, the loudmouth drunk guy spewing his garbage has been from the right.

[LTS]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

While that is true, in my experience, I would say that 90% of the time, the loudmouth drunk guy spewing his garbage has been from the right.

Mine is about 50/50.  Though to be fair, I keep most extreme minded individuals out of my life, so I won't hear it and if some blowhard starts going strong in public I just walk away so I don't have to hear much of the haranguing.

 

 

[That Aud Smell]

On 9/20/2018 at 11:14 AM, josie said:

Fu*k love solves all- to have love you have to participate. 

That's a tough story - I'm sorry for the abuse you and others have had to endure from that man.

I was imprecise and probably implied things I didn't intend when I talked upthread about abiding people with whom I disagree and invoking love that never fails.

I don't have the time or energy to expound now. But, for present purposes, I would suggest that what you have in mind above when you use the words "love" and "solves" (solution, etc.) is almost certainly different from what I have in mind.

Right now, I am thinking of books I've read by Thich Nhat Hanh, for starters.

[josie]

On 9/20/2018 at 1:13 PM, Hank said:

Josie - "pull yourself up by your bootstaps". There's something to this. It's not a bad motto to have in life. You seem to use it in a disparaging context. It's not code for being a bad person. I'm sorry for you that that seems to be your experience. Just my two cents, which, admittedly, isn't worth very much. 

The babbling below is about the political meaning of the term- I can't separate the two anymore. I only say all this blather because this is a political section of the board, and its other, more unfortunate meaning is well known and worthy of discussion. 

It's a term: Bootstrapping: “lifting oneself up the social and economic ladder through individual effort, hard work and personal responsibility.” Both sides use it in its original meaning- the idea that you can have a humble origin and become a superstar. Rags to riches. The American dream. Horatio Alger, 1890s. It has since rather soured from that lovely bucolic ideal into one that actually tinges with race and privilege: this article explains it pretty well. I hear it used often, usually in conjunction with icky strawman arguments to prove a side. 

It absolutely applies sometimes- and I get the idea behind it. I do essentially live by that basic definition- I work my stupid a$$ off knowing I'll never amount to anything or earn more than 40k, but chasing that glimmer of hope that I'll at least have left something worth building upon to others. But I think I'll continue to choose to avoid that term. To use it, I'd have to add a cauveat in modern parlance, depending on my use (I mean hell, if I'm out in a rainy pasture in spring and my damn boot really is stuck in that sucking mud, I will absolutely pull myself up by my own bootstraps haha). Effort doesn't always equal success, and applying soundbite semantics across an uneven board can distort one's view of reality in regards to our culture. 

In my uncle's case, he says it about his sons, yes, but only because he's using it the same way he uses it to talk about BLM, welfare, protestors, etc. often connecting the two as both worthless and lazy. Course, the irony being, those small businesses we all babble about every election are doing just that- working hard, pulling themselves up from nothing - and the powers that be do little to nothing to support that growth that they extoll virtuously on every shiny campaign sign (both sides).

The cartoons attached aren't labeled one side or the other- most of the others I came across when doing a smidge of research on the term were very critical of one side. 

The original sentiment is a good motto. The modern incarnation has been tarnished.

 

[Hank]

@josie, thanks for responding, I'll reply when I have more time.