Banning ad revenue

[vorticism]

I don't know if you have ever been to the USA but there is little sympathy for African Americans.

600k European Americans died in the war that freed them. Despite none of the cannon fodder being slave owners nor slave traders, nor requesting for their shipment across the Atlantic ocean. This you would consider to be a lack of sympathy? 600k dying on behalf of strangers? As well, in the modern day, their government mandated preferential access to assistance and employment; this as well represents a lack of sympathy?

So going back to your main point, I don't think the advertising is F1 is harmful to the consumer.

I probably agree. However if I want to push forward the goal of cleaner looking cars then one way to do so may be to play the game. The FIA and modern bureaus generally react only to overwrought claims about health, safety, and environment, put forth by people who care about neither three. Hence, framing the situation as in the OP would be one tactic. That said, the other forms of propaganda discussed in this thread, yes, are not really present in F1, and could genuinely be described as a public health threat. But that was the other members bringing up those points.

[PlatinumZealot]

I don't know if you have ever been to the USA but there is little sympathy for African Americans.

600k White men died in the war that freed them. Despite none of the cannon fodder being slave owners nor slave traders, nor requesting for their shipment across the ocean. This you would consider to be a lack of sympathy? As well, their government mandated preferential access to assistance and employment; this as well represents a lack of sympathy?

There were total 750,000 deaths from both sides. 3 Confederates died for every 1 Northerner. So about 562,000 confederates died to KEEP slavery. And 187,000 Northerners died to abolish it. There were about 180,000 total African Americans in there, on both sides of course. No question who were on the front lines. Also, two out of three civil war deaths were from disease rather than battle according to this source: https://www.facinghistory.org/resource- ... -civil-war.

It is beyond just freeing the slaves. There were heavy economic and political interests in keeping slavery. That was 250 years ago. Today, if you think there is an agenda to make you embrace people of different backgrounds, you're thinking a little too deep into things!

They do want you to embrace their products and services though!

[vorticism]

There were total 750,000 deaths from both sides. 3 Confederates died for every 1 Northerner. So about 562,000 confederates died to KEEP slavery. And 187,000 Northerners died to abolish it. There were about 180,000 total African Americans in there, on both sides of course. No question who were on the front lines.

Your claim was about a dearth of sympathy for the African American, while ignoring the catastrophic loss of European American life which bought their emancipation. Spouting inaccurate numbers as a rebuttal does not help your case. What you've presented is a sloppy rewriting of history. A 3:1 death ratio is way off, you are perhaps confusing population statistics CSA vs. Union. African American war deaths are estimated generously at closer to 60-80k total (not 180k) combined CSA & Union mostly due to disease or other indirect factors; perhaps 5k as combat deaths (figures of 3% combat death rate on the Union side can be found).

African American combat participation was limited by their starting conditions, so yes, there is a question about who was on the front lines. Militaries then weren't like militaries now; different modes of living meant men arrived with some experience in self sufficiency and arms usage, and training was less intensive. As well mixed companies would not have been common, this was a century before forced integration. Presenting this fake 180k number out of thin air is a disservice to the veterans and casualties of that war. Even a disservice to its benefactors. Lastly you must understand that young Confederate soldiers were not fighting to maintain slavery; they were not plantation owners, nor were they slave traders, nor did they have slave ships on their small farms hundreds of miles from coastline. They were fighting to maintain their autonomy, their way of life in defense of their homelands, as the industrialized North steamrolled them. By nature of being in the same states where the mistake of slavery was most proliferate, they were caught up in a war which was not their own.

It is beyond just freeing the slaves. There were heavy economic and political interests in keeping slavery.

And equally heavy interests in abolishing it. Hence the war. Consider that one of the main reason to shake up demographics then, as now, is to reduce working class wages by inflating the overall population with unaligned, adversarial, or distinct subgroups. Similar to scabs in a strike, but on a massive scale. That was the whole point of slavery to begin with (!); it was cheaper for the capitalists and plantation holders to amortize the cost of a slave than it was to hire locals. Again, recall that the war was fought by lower and middle class European Americans who did not own slaves, had no use for slaves, and had nothing to do with the importation of slaves. Yet, they are always given the blame, and demanded to tolerate the externalities of slavery. Even in the South, it was something like fewer than 5% of Southerners owned slaves. The modern public doesn't discuss who specifically owned, shipped, and sold slaves, because, as the adage goes: winners by and large write popular history.

[Andres125sx]

Advertising is as old as the world is. It's totally ridiculous to say it's manipulation or that it's harmful.

I hope you´re not trying to say that since it´s old, it can´t be harmful. I can provide you a very long list of even older activities wich are extremelly harmful, but we didn´t know until someone did analyse it in detail. That´s progress.

this is a strawman, I didn't make that argument so no reason to comment, just saying that something that survives that long is clearly useful.

I know, but IMHO that argument is false. Being old is not a proof of utility. Look at tobacco for example, much older, but that does not mean it´s useful, it´s still poison wich only provide severe and numerous health problems.

And every activity is harmful, frequent cycling has long term effects of slight increase in cardiac arrest due to thickening of heart's walls. Like in F1, everything is a balance and trade-offs.

Please do not confuse the abuse of any healthy activity, with harmful activities, they´re different worlds!!

Vitamins can be harmful if abused, but I guess and hope you would never compare vitamins and tobacco saying both can be harmful, would you?

I don't know what this means. You decide what's good or bad?

Maybe I´m a weird person asking for imposible things, but IMHO when a company sells X product, a competition, show, or simulation where that X product is tested and compared with that same X product from different brands, so see what of them performs better, I would not consider that advertising. That´s a real world test of the perfomance of the product

If it does not work, the whole world will see the product is flawed or is useless, wich is the polar opposite to advertising.

Advertising: someone stating X product is the best, even if he´s never tested it. What any sensible person would consider a scam in any real world scenario, but for some reason if it´s a comercial it´s accepted
Competition: the product being tested in real world, if it does not work it´ll be exposed and everybody will see how flawed it is

Competition is only comparable to advertising for the winner, all the rest... and contrary to comercials, the winner earned that advertising with real world perfomance

Also existed for millenia without cars or planes or trains or internet or fire or any technology. Should we go back to that?

Maybe, at least in some aspects. I´m far from jelaous when I see many aspects of current young people life, actually there´s some aspects wich makes me extremelly sad about humankind.

Progress is good, but not every single aspect of progress, as always there´s some good and some bad aspects. For example current narcissism where people is eager to receive clicks and views, to the point some will do very stupid, or dangerous or stupid and dangerous things to receive some attention, show how selfish and stupid can become some aspects of progress

[Jolle]

Most of the time, when something needs advertisement, especially a lot of it, you don’t need it (or is bad value for what you spend). I actively use this with movies. When one is hyped by lots of adds, talk show, etc etc, 9 times out of 10 it’s pretty bad, so I avoid those.

[Big Tea]

Guys, we are going way off topic here in many directions. Deleted the rest as it is getting far too political

[hollus]

When discussion centers around what “you said”, the american civil war and european slave trade…
I think this has run its course. Less politics next time if it is wished for the thread to remain open.