What Are the Reactions to the Absurd Political Ad: 2030?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nismaratwork
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around a controversial ad perceived as both humorous and racially charged, critiquing its production quality and acting while acknowledging its ambition to instill fear. Participants express concerns about the implications of China's rising economic power, suggesting it could lead to a shift in global dominance. The ad is criticized for its mixed messages, portraying socialism as detrimental to the U.S. while highlighting a communist state as a potential superpower. There is a debate on the effectiveness of fear-based messaging and its appeal to xenophobic sentiments. Overall, the conversation reflects deep anxieties about geopolitical shifts and societal changes.
  • #31
rootX said:
Sure it is not well thought out but it says "civilizations fail when they turn their back on the principles that made them great". It is arguing that US is going against its principles not that government/stimulus are bad.

Yeah, we should never have given women the vote, or recognized anyone except land-owning white men as people.

I so miss a good romp with my African slaves, and smoking marijuana, both great principles and pasttimes of this great nation.

</sarcasm>
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
nismaratwork said:
Yeah, we should never have given women the vote, or recognized anyone except land-owning white men as people.

I so miss a good romp with my African slaves, and smoking marijuana, both great principles and pasttimes of this great nation.

</sarcasm>

irrelevant.
 
  • #33
rootX said:
irrelevant.

How so? This appeal to some mystical set of principles and holy men who forged them is irrelvant... we live in the present and AFAIK we're still jamming those principles down any throat we can reach.

Really, we were true to racist and sexist principles far longer than not, so... forgive my cynicism in this regard.


Oh, and I doubt that the Chinese would be amused to be portrayed and cackling schemers gloating over the death of a fictional empire.
 
  • #34
nismaratwork said:
Yeah, we should never have given women the vote, or recognized anyone except land-owning white men as people.

I so miss a good romp with my African slaves, and smoking marijuana, both great principles and pasttimes of this great nation.

</sarcasm>

Actually, I don't see that there's too much wrong with smoking marijuana. Studies have proven time and again that alcohol is far more hazardous to your health than marijuana is.
 
  • #35
nismaratwork said:
How so? ...

Bobbywhy and Gokul posted: "The ad suggests that the US loses its dominance by turning towards socialism".

I argued no it does not quoting turning its back towards its principles from the video.

What you are going towards is out of scope and has no relevance to above and it followed by even more irrelevant content.
 
  • #36
Char. Limit said:
Actually, I don't see that there's too much wrong with smoking marijuana. Studies have proven time and again that alcohol is far more hazardous to your health than marijuana is.

Oh, I'm a fan myself on occasion, but it's not a principle we've stuck to, now is it?
 
  • #37
rootX said:
Bobbywhy and Gokul posted: "The ad suggests that the US loses its dominance by turning towards socialism".

I argued no it does not quoting turning its back towards its principles from the video.

What you are going towards is out of scope and has no relevance to above.

Wow, could you reference less of my post if you tried, and explain less how this is not relevant to the broad scope of the OP, with whom I'm close personal friends (jab at DA)?
 
  • #38
Actually, I see the ad as having a point, even though part of it may not be correct.

Char. Limit said:
Studies have proven time and again that alcohol is far more hazardous to your health than marijuana is.
Then ban alcohol. Wait, they tried that and it didn't work... :-p
 
  • #39
rootX said:
Sure it is not well thought out but it says "civilizations fail when they turn their back on the principles that made them great". It is arguing that US is going against its principles not that government/stimulus are bad.

The last time I pointed out the principle which the US has turned it's back on, which is killing us economically, the thread got locked. :frown:

Maybe I'll go back and watch Toffler's video. I was probably only 13 when I read his book "Future Shock".
 
  • #40
What I find least believable is a China which, during its continued population and pollution dillema, shores this up so completely that by 2030 they're gloating already.

Oh, and using Japanese and American products to provide the demo (iPad). :rolleyes:
 
  • #41
Ivan Seeking said:
I have long been a fan of Alvin Toffler. In fact, the "electronic cottage" concept in his book, The Third Wave, gave me the idea for my business as it exists today. I realized he as right and we are there - the technology now exists to do what he discussed many years earlier. You might find his ideas about our near future interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DWj-G-VZEQ

As for China, he thinks they will have their own problems to deal with.


http://www.openfuture.co.nz/toffler.html

yeah, i remember something about this guy from years back. didn't he go to south korea and convince them that education was the path for them? and then they march toward modernization the way japan once did and end up with the highest per capita of PhDs. now of course they are dealing with other problems like internet addiction among teens.

as for the OP, no, i do not see the ad as racist. it's just coincidence that a country that may be one of the next superpowers is full of asian people. for ages it seemed that might be the USSR, and such an ad would have a Russian flavor.
 
  • #42
It is obvious that the ad plays on the fear factor. It worked for Bush with WMD's. I think we can expect to see a lot more similar ads between now and Nov. 2012.
 
  • #43
Proton Soup said:
yeah, i remember something about this guy from years back. didn't he go to south korea and convince them that education was the path for them? and then they march toward modernization the way japan once did and end up with the highest per capita of PhDs. now of course they are dealing with other problems like internet addiction among teens.

as for the OP, no, i do not see the ad as racist. it's just coincidence that a country that may be one of the next superpowers is full of asian people. for ages it seemed that might be the USSR, and such an ad would have a Russian flavor.

OK, and that charictature of Russian people would have been what?... Accurate? :rolleyes:

To be honest, the only gloating I see is generally from people who are deeply entrenched in losing; that goes for us, and the Chinese. I suppose if you look at China as a GDP, it's going in the right direction, but if you look at the populace in general, overpopulation, loss of arible land, water, and and a military with more power and money than sense or restraint... I'd say China is headed for trouble.

The last time two superpowers 'cold-warred' it, we both ended up essentially broke; why do you think China can play catch-up with an astronomical population and not suffer a similar fate? Currency controls don't last forever either... really, this is fear-mongering, and as many countries are currently beating the pants off the USA, I'd say the whole presentation was a bit racist.

Then again, so were ye olde Soviet propoganda bits too; usually more than one pathology can be found in something so based in ignorance, fear, and laughable stupidity.
 
  • #44
edward said:
It is obvious that the ad plays on the fear factor. It worked for Bush with WMD's. I think we can expect to see a lot more similar ads between now and Nov. 2012.

Yeah, somehow I think 2030 is a little far off when things are going to hell as we speak in the ME, Japan is sunk, and we're still clawing our way out financial hell. Boy who cried wolf and all of that has to play a role, except for those who get off on fear.
 
  • #45
I just watched and transcribed the video in it's entirety, such that I might better understand the psychology behind it.

Their four "fear factor" points do I think pray on the uniformed "look out for the boogey man" masses, all of which have been debated endlessly here at the forum.

But it's most effective in two very psychological areas:
1. No one wants to be a failure.
2. No one wants to be laughed at.

I would counter attack the Ad buy tearing apart their final plea; "stop the spending that is bankrupting America"

Spending in and of itself doesn't bankrupt a nation. A breakdown of principles can. Which is how they started out the little video. But what principles are they talking about? There must be thousands!

We've got the basic ones:
The United States Declaration of Independence said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Hmm... At least for me:
Life: check!
Liberty: check!
Happiness: check!

Maybe it's some newer principles?

Emma Lazarus said:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Ok then. It looks like we slid from Paternal to Maternal principles in about 100 years. (Party animals vs. Taking care of the kids.)(I say slid, because I am, in fact, a party animal.)

So here we are, a little more than 100 years later, and are trying to determine what exactly principles we should not be turning our backs on.

Anyone?

(please, oh please, let it be happiness)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU

:smile:




*A bogeyman (also spelt bogieman, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman" or boogieman) is an amorphous imaginary being used by adults to frighten children...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
Buggerman, Ton Ton Macoute, Sackman, Uncle Gunnysack... poor kids...
 
  • #47
nismaratwork said:
if you look at the populace in general, overpopulation, loss of arible land, water, and and a military with more power and money than sense or restraint... I'd say China is headed for trouble.

I would ask for some references (or evidences) for that

"populace in general, overpopulation, loss of arible land, water, and and a military with more power and money than sense or restraint" will put China in trouble
 
  • #48
rootX said:
I would ask for some references (or evidences) for that

"populace in general, overpopulation, loss of arible land, water, and and a military with more power and money than sense or restraint" will put China in trouble

They're all over the forum, from a variety of sources, and frankly the loss of arable land is common knowledge. In keeping with the standards set by pftest and others, google it.

here... http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=Geserit+&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS306US306&q=Geserit+#hl=en&rlz=1T4DKUS_enUS306US306&sa=X&ei=AImPTcCwLIy3twfWrai_DQ&ved=0CBcQvwUoAQ&q=china+loss+arable+land&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d3cf963e1097ce14

The rest follows. This is GD, and if Phil doesn't require more, why should this.
 
  • #49
nismaratwork said:
OK, and that charictature of Russian people would have been what?... Accurate? :rolleyes:

To be honest, the only gloating I see is generally from people who are deeply entrenched in losing; that goes for us, and the Chinese. I suppose if you look at China as a GDP, it's going in the right direction, but if you look at the populace in general, overpopulation, loss of arible land, water, and and a military with more power and money than sense or restraint... I'd say China is headed for trouble.

The last time two superpowers 'cold-warred' it, we both ended up essentially broke; why do you think China can play catch-up with an astronomical population and not suffer a similar fate? Currency controls don't last forever either... really, this is fear-mongering, and as many countries are currently beating the pants off the USA, I'd say the whole presentation was a bit racist.

Then again, so were ye olde Soviet propoganda bits too; usually more than one pathology can be found in something so based in ignorance, fear, and laughable stupidity.

yeah, I'm not sure the fears are logical either. but the chinese have made great progress technologically and are likewise not averse to colonialism. I'm not sure where we are headed exactly, only that we live in interesting times.

again, as for the ad, what specifically about it do you find offensive?
 
  • #50
nismaratwork said:
They're all over the forum, from a variety of sources, and frankly the loss of arable land is common knowledge.

Sure, put some of sources here then. Also, I didn't ask you if there is a loss of arable land. Rather I asked:
"populace in general, overpopulation, loss of arible land, water, and and a military with more power and money than sense or restraint" will put China in trouble

In keeping with the standards set by pftest and others, google it.

The rest follows. This is GD, and if Phil doesn't require more, why should this.

I really don't care about pf or GD standards or what Phil requires but if you want to make an opinionated statement like China is going into trouble for this and that, you should better have something to backup with. It is your not my job to do your homework (google for you to find how true are your statements).
 
  • #51
rootX said:
Sure, put some of sources here then. Also, I didn't ask you if there is a loss of arable land. Rather I asked:




I really don't care about pf or GD standards or what Phil requires but if you want to make an opinionated statement like China is going into trouble for this and that, you should better have something to backup with. It is your not my job to do your homework (google for you to find how true are your statements).

I agree with you, but from my own experience trying to get the same from others, I've often had no luck. Reciprocity is a beast, but then, you're not the offender.

http://www.newsgd.com/specials/npc&cppcc 2006/npccppccsessionsnews/200603080056.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-12/26/content_6348004.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB0-4CMJCP5-3&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1695301342&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cb20adf8a4345d93dddcb61f69731b3b&searchtype=a

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3912


etc...

If you think that a huge and growing population coupled with a loss of arable land is anything BUT trouble, I'd be intersted to hear how that works. Overpopulation in China... I don't think is an issue requiring constant citation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
The ad claims that the U.S. declined in around 2012 we were not capitalistic enough, and thus we were overtaken by China.

Very strange that the people producing the ad seem unaware that China is a Communist country.
 
  • #53
ApplePion said:
The ad claims that the U.S. declined in around 2012 we were not capitalistic enough, and thus we were overtaken by China.

Very strange that the people producing the ad seem unaware that China is a Communist country.

...Yet they managed to plaster the big 'Mao' sign... really it's just a pastiche of xenophobia.

I also have to say... who works for whom anyway? If the situation reverses or simply reaches more parity, who's to say the process would leave China some wicked and cackling group?

This ad would be purely comical if good beef-eating NASCAR dads and Soccer moms didn't wet themselves at this kind of thing, and then you have the horrophiliacs...
 
  • #54
nismaratwork said:
I agree with you, but from my own experience trying to get the same from others, I've often had no luck. Reciprocity is a beast, but then, you're not the offender.

http://www.newsgd.com/specials/npc&cppcc 2006/npccppccsessionsnews/200603080056.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-12/26/content_6348004.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB0-4CMJCP5-3&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1695301342&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cb20adf8a4345d93dddcb61f69731b3b&searchtype=a

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3912


etc...

If you think that a huge and growing population coupled with a loss of arable land is anything BUT trouble, I'd be intersted to hear how that works. Overpopulation in China... I don't think is an issue requiring constant citation.

What's preventing China from importing food like http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/foodimports/"? All your sources said China is facing food security concern. While it is a valid concern but I don't find it serious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
rootX said:
What's preventing China from importing food like http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/foodimports/"? All your sources said China is facing food security concern. While it is a valid concern but I don't find it serious.

Nothing, and that's just what we do, support their dwindling food supply, which was my original point!

Remember, we depend on their money to drive our economy, they are coming to depend on us to EAT. I don't see a country we could starve out into chaos by 2030 as a significant threat, and as militaries, "march on their stomachs" it adds another dimension to the issue.

In short, China and the USA have more to gain from a profitable relationship, allowing China to continue its rapid social, cultural, economic change (often in the right direction) than we do from fear of being somehow owned by China.

We can't afford to collapse our economy, and they can't afford to starve.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
rootX said:
Sure it is not well thought out but it says "civilizations fail when they turn their back on the principles that made them great". It is arguing that US is going against its principles not that government/stimulus are bad.
Agreed completely. If you follow the content of the ad very carefully, there is no contradiction in it, and I did not say there was one. However, what is more important that the most literal interpretation is the most common interpretation (i.e., what most people will take home as the moral of the story). In this case, I think it is unlikely that nearly everyone is going to go to bed without noticing a seeming disconnect within a story where the US is suffering from socialism while China is thriving from it. You don't want an ad to leave you with doubts about your message, you want it to speak clearly.

That's why I characterized it as a "mixed message", not a contradiction or fallacy.
 
  • #57
I see a deeper flaw:

What principles make a civilization GREAT? What is a great civilization? Is it a great thing that China is unified under central rule? Is it a great thing that we have in the USA?

Just what are these great things, the mystical principles? Again... China is a history of warring states and brutal internal conquest.

...and so is the USA.

Still, did that make us great? Does the right to pursue LLH make us great? Maybe it's just the capacity of any given major power to delude itself about the inevitable that's so great...

Really, if you guys see something in this ad, it's because you have it already... the ad offers nothing. It's meant to evoke fear and nostalgia; fear of something that is bull, an nostalgia for something that never was.
 
  • #58
nismaratwork said:
I see a deeper flaw:

As do I...

This should be in philosophy talk.
 
  • #59
OmCheeto said:
As do I...

This should be in philosophy talk.

Really? I wouldn't be able to start a Phil thread if you paid me... if you can, go for it!

I really thought this was just one of those things that everyone would laugh at. Surprise... jokes on me. :smile: