Im sure the artist that drew this might have felt bad for all the people he killed, looks like we have been taking advantage of people's addictive tendencies for a long time, but hey you know everyone had the choice whether to smoke or not right? Too bad they left out the part about how it would kill them, but I'm sure they didn't do that on purpose.
Im sure the artist that drew this might have felt bad for all the people he killed, looks like we have been taking advantage of people's addictive tendencies for a long time, but hey you know everyone had the choice whether to smoke or not right? Too bad they left out the part about how it would kill them, but I'm sure they didn't do that on purpose.
i'm going to ignore the whole 'artist -> cigarretttes -> murderer' fallacy and jump right on to another point. I hope you understand, though, that i know a strawman when i see one, i'm just going to humor you because it ties into one of my central points.
If one advertisement is immoral, does that mean all advertisements are immoral?
Or is this advertisement immoral BECAUSE all advertising is intrinsically immoral, regardless of its contents?
I never said all ads were immoral, the same I'm trying to say not all games are immoral. But I think these practices are immoral, and its not so hard to believe that there are bad people out there and they do bad things, and they don't care if they hurt people.
Bob is an idiot, yes. But does that mean we have the right to hurt him, on purpose?
Those artists had the choice back then to choose whether to illustrate a shoe add or a ciggarette ad, same as we have a choice to work on a psycho addictive game, or not.
The company made you feel bad, and that's bad business practice, not just dishonest moneymaking. They lost a lot of fans, because they made a backhanded, immoral move, and people noticed. Again, self regulation of a free market is NOT perfect, or even close, but it definitely does work to some degree.
dunno how many I bought.
But that's basically where my suspicion of the more subtle marketing methods comes from: self regulation of a market is NOT perfect and only works to a degree. It makes it harder for me as consumer to weed out the bad apples I don't want to buy from (or to which I don't even want to give my e-mail!)
The company running this MMO is still doing quite well overall.
My question is: isnt that 'feeling' a commodity? Isnt the consumer given the choice between the product they feel good about and the product they don't feel good about?
The fact that people will pay for a vague comforting 'feel' isnt scary or surprising at all. I'm pretty sure that's why the entertainment industry exists. The reason you like one videogame over the other is down to the esoteric feel of the mechanics. If books, movies, games, paintings, music, and plays are allowed to charge massive amounts of money for a product just cause they can influence the audience to feel good about it, why can't Axe bodywash?
Certainly that feeling is a commodity. A commodity purchased by the producer from a marketing firm. They are hired for the service of creating that "feeling" in a targeted group. Sure a consumer has a choice between a product they feel good about and one they don't. The question is, why would they? You can be given the choice between a chocolate cake and a boiled rat, but the result is always going to be the same. Even in the less extreme example of "I feel better about this otherwise identical shampoo because of the packaging over that one bottle that looks too girly" The result is the same...Why would someone choose something they don't feel good about over something they do?
I think comparing the feelings people get from media experiences vs feeling good about themselves because they bought Axe bodywash is a bit of a stretch. One product is a variable, multifaceted experience, the other is smelly, liquid soap. I might feel good about a movie because I identified with a character, or liked the story, or thought the effects were neat. I might have hated it because the characters were stupid, the dialog terrible, whatever...but my impression of the experience was shaped largely by my experiencing it. (Which is why I hate reviewers...I don't need someone else telling me something like a movie or a game is bad for a reason that is entirely personal to them. Sure there are some universal goods and bads, but I've enjoyed the hell out of some poorly reviewed movies and games often times for the very reason the reviewer hated it) It is also an experience I can continue going over and thinking about. Feeling good about buying Axe bodywash is only the comfort of knowing that, via your purchase of overpriced soap you're part of a cool/sexy/in-style/insert motivating social factor here/ group, entirely manufactured through advertising. If the group isn't manufactured then your belonging to it because of your purchase certainly is.
One product is a variable, multifaceted experience, the other is smelly, liquid soap.
The issue is, something like this is utterly subjective and has almost no logical basis. A lot of people would turn it around and say the exact opposite:
One is a silly videogame and a fantasy, the other is a real, physical product.
If i said that, would either of us be right or wrong?
When it comes down to it, the ONLY fair way to handle opinions like this is to let people choose to buy what they want. And if they're stupid, they buy stupid things, that's their right.
I never said all ads were immoral, the same I'm trying to say not all games are immoral. But I think these practices are immoral, and its not so hard to believe that there are bad people out there and they do bad things, and they don't care if they hurt people.
Bob is an idiot, yes. But does that mean we have the right to hurt him, on purpose?
Unless Bob wears a hockey helmet and or has a court appointed guardian that makes decisions for him, Bob is responsible for what offers Bob accepts.
No one is talking about doing physical harm to Bob to turn a profit.
Obviously beating Bob up and stealing his wallet is not ok.
I shouldn't need to be Bob's nurse and make the world safe for Bob to continue making his bad choices, consequence free.
We don't need a world that's safe for people to continually make bad choices.
We need people who make good choices.
"Desmond: You're gonna die Charlie, and there's nothin' I can do to stop it.
It's a bigger burden on society to ask everyone who has functioning brain cells to be a Desmond and keep trying to save all the Charlies day after day.
Eventually Bob's bad choices will catch up to him. If not through finical mismanagement, it will be through his poor eating habits or his decision to take his new flat screen TV for a walk down a dark alley while wearing a shinny Rolex he bought with his high interest credit card.
What will probably get Bob, is suicide. Because he'll come to the stark realization that he, has been ruining his life all along and that he, is the only one that can clean it up and make it worth living.
Unfortunately the people who make good choices are often not procreating because they're making good choices... So we end up with a lot more Bob's than we do actual productive citizens.
The issue is, something like this is utterly subjective and has almost no logical basis. A lot of people would turn it around and say the exact opposite:
One is a silly videogame and a fantasy, the other is a real, physical product.
If i said that, would either of us be right or wrong?
When it comes down to it, the ONLY fair way to handle opinions like this is to let people choose to buy what they want. And if they're stupid, they buy stupid things, that's their right.
I pretty much agree. You do have to let people choose. The problem is differentiating what they want, from what they've been told to want. I just think it's an illusion to believe that people, as a whole, are independent, well informed actors making decisions based on real qualitative differences in a world awash in virtually identical products and nearly endless forms of advertising media. I don't think advertising in and of itself is "immoral", and in so far as it's spreading awareness of a product then it's got nothing to do with morality. However I think a lot of advertising these days is really more propaganda than information.
...and come on, you're gonna shoot me down for using a subjective example and then say something like "if they're stupid, they buy stupid things"
anyway, the whole reason I got worked up about this article really had less to do with the advertising aspect and more to do with his gleeful description of how great it's going to be to live in a surveillance state.
When it comes down to it, the ONLY fair way to handle opinions like this is to let people choose to buy what they want. And if they're stupid, they buy stupid things, that's their right.
Thats my biggest problem right there. Let's say there is a new stupid product doing gazillion cool stupid things, connects to facebook and unlocks achievements. Fine, I am not forced to buy it. BUT! You can be sure that everybody will talk about it and tell me (directly from friends, or indirectly from ads or facebook updates i am not interested in) how awesome it is. This shit happens already.
Now, I don't fall for peer pressure so I am fine, I won't buy it. But the background noise this stuff generates irritates me a huge deal. It invades my privacy somehow and confront me to the stupidity around me. I dont care what StupidBob choses, I dont even care too much about him being uneducated or whatever. But even if I am not buying the product, I become a victim of the outrageous buzz or whatnot. If marketing/advertising takes a new shape, fine, but the problem is, it also hits folks NOT buying the product.
Now you could say, lets imagine targeted advertising only displaying things that I am likely to want. Problem solved, right? Nope, because I dont want to be in a buying mood all the time. I would want to switch the minority report Ad screen OFF, and also make it disappear of my sight because it ugly. But this, I couldn't do.
Now, I don't fall for peer pressure so I am fine, I won't buy it. But the background noise this stuff generates irritates me a huge deal.
That's exactly why I hated Facebook, Myspace, etc.... I heard so much about it, it got to the point that I hated it before I even used it (still haven't). A lot of things are like that to me - the more I hear about them, the less I want them...
Anyone else in the Maryland area go to the IGDA meeting sponsored by Zynga last night?
Brian Reynolds gave a talk on his real time player metrics
( everthing down to which color links git pressed the most )
and his social virality strategy.
Didn't realize Big Huge Brian Reynolds was the Farmville/Mafia Wars creator.
Thats my biggest problem right there. Let's say there is a new stupid product doing gazillion cool stupid things, connects to facebook and unlocks achievements. Fine, I am not forced to buy it. BUT! You can be sure that everybody will talk about it and tell me (directly from friends, or indirectly from ads or facebook updates i am not interested in) how awesome it is. This shit happens already.
Now, I don't fall for peer pressure so I am fine, I won't buy it. But the background noise this stuff generates irritates me a huge deal. It invades my privacy somehow and confront me to the stupidity around me. Even if I am not buying the product, I become a victim of the outrageous buzz or whatnot. But then again - it only happens in America really.
Well, i guess the distinction here is that while it's annoying, it isnt really actually hurting you -- not taking away from your bank account or your health.
I totally agree that this bullshit is annoying, but not that it is HARMFUL and SHOULD BE STOPPED. that's where i'm drawing the line, i guess.
Cthuoga, same reason i made the subjective judgement i did but shot yours down -- i think it's wrong to try and make an objective judgement (this object has more value than this object...) for subjective reasons (... because i like it) -- having those subjective opinions is obviously a basic human and legally protected right in most of the world.
To me, anything potentially annoying should be ...hmmm .... not there, or at least turned off by default. I can choose not to buy a TV (I did). But I cannot chose to avoid billboards, and I cannot choose to avoid LCDdisplay-enhanced cereal boxes if they eventually become the norm. Sneakiness annoys me and DOES ruin my day sometimes. But that's just me. I see some folks totally enjoying it and asking for more.
That's exactly why I hated Facebook, Myspace, etc.... I heard so much about it, it got to the point that I hated it before I even used it (still haven't). A lot of things are like that to me - the more I hear about them, the less I want them...
that's why I love adblock. Not only does it reduce screen spam, pages also load much quicker when they don't have to stream a gazillion flash ads. In a way the ad-industry brought adblock upon themselves by just becoming more and more annoying and intrusive.
I'm not sure how much of a simpleton you have to be to become more likely to buy a product because the ad's more annoying. Also the ads won't stop if you buy the product. Although there are products I'd really buy if it would stop the ads.
Watch this and try not to get excited and inspired. I dare you, you guys have souls, right? Seriously, we're a forum of creatives, where is the camaraderie for our advertising brothers.
This isnt exactly an exciting delivery of it, so i'll summarize. In impoverished parts of africa and asia, people can't and don't know to wash their hands. People realize they can make money by selling soap. But how do you sell soap to people who aren't technologically aware that washing their hands saves lives? You educate them! Save lives, and get wealthy. Marketing at work.
I have a soul but no youtube...darn the great firewall. anyway, it's morning and my insomnia is wearing off. has been an interesting discussion. g'night
It's not their job to educate people or look after society and make sure people are well balanced. That responsibility falls on parents, educators and ultimately on the people themselves. It's their job to effectively market their product and not break the law.
At some point people need to stop blaming external forces and take ownership of their lives.
Thats how you think it should be, but in reality do you think it works that way(all the time). Michael ovitz president of walt disney, explains it well ''It's not about money. The money will flow. It's about power and influence''. Their doing more than just their job, their getting involved where they shouldn't get involved. Like they get involved in politics and so on.
Their job is actually to make you uncomfortable about yourself, your body and looks(or whatever it is something negative) and say that their product solves everything wrong with you. That their products make you great and they feed your alter ego. It works well with women more cause their more concered of their looks, and if the women dont put on the make-up they face being judged by society and society WILL judge them. Like we judge people by the car they drive to the clothes they wear, and the corporations know this and take advantage.
Now not all companies do this, and it may explain why their not doing so well, as the bad guy at the top. :poly124:
It seems in business you have to be ruthless to make it up the ladder.
As for people to take ownership of their own lifes, your right they should but these companies arent helpping in any positive way.
I feel sorry for younger generations who have to grow up with this shit embedded into their social lives and assume it's natural social behavior. Hopefully our culture will get over this desire for non-stop communication and cataloging of every acquaintance they've ever met, and the desire to collect and share metadata about everything in their lives. It's stupid.
I have a soul but no youtube...darn the great firewall. anyway, it's morning and my insomnia is wearing off. has been an interesting discussion. g'night
There's loads of adverts I've seen now which skirt the line of what is acceptable. I'm surprised they are able to get away with some of the claims, some dont and are pulled.
I'm waiting for the day when we have the minority report type adverts, which personally track you, what you like, when you like it. They are working on this stuff now. How and where to track all your data, and then precision advertise, exactly what they know, what they want you to buy, and a subtle incidious method for advertising it so you buy it.
They are already starting it with the clubcards and the little offers they send you which you think great, I'll buy them. As soon as they perfect it I am legging it to the woods.
Damn, good speech! I bet we artists would be even more motivated to crank out art if we got points every time we drew something, maybe you want to be the space marine modeling master and you gotta crank out at least 5 more than the second best!
I love the point about the iPad btw, this guy did a damn entertaining and enlightening presentation!
Their job is actually to make you uncomfortable about yourself, your body and looks(or whatever it is something negative) and say that their product solves everything wrong with you. That their products make you great and they feed your alter ego. It works well with women more cause their more concered of their looks, and if the women dont put on the make-up they face being judged by society and society WILL judge them.
They choose to hang around with people who are obsessed with their looks and pass judgment on people. I'll ague that someone who is that obsessed with their looks didn't get their issues from TV or ads and that they could be attractive if they where more confident and comfortable with themselves.
Now not all companies do this, and it may explain why their not doing so well, as the bad guy at the top. :poly124:
It seems in business you have to be ruthless to make it up the ladder.
I think you need to be confident and have enough conviction to see things through, more than just be ruthless. I think there are a lot of people that are ruthless but lack the confidence and conviction to carry it out. There are a lot of successful people who wouldn't sell their grandmother for 5 bucks. You can probably do ok for yourself and treat people pretty well. I could probably put a list together if you need one.
It also depends on your definition of success. He who dies with the biggest stack of oddly colored paper wins, no rules anything goes? What if society decided that success was defined by dying with the biggest stack that wasn't made by exploiting others. That's where we're headed thanks to the latest melt down.
As for people to take ownership of their own lives, your right they should but these companies arent helping in any positive way.
It's like Hoodoo, its only dangerous if you believe in it and subject yourself to it. It can be annoying sure but it only has as much power as you give it.
Replies
i'm going to ignore the whole 'artist -> cigarretttes -> murderer' fallacy and jump right on to another point. I hope you understand, though, that i know a strawman when i see one, i'm just going to humor you because it ties into one of my central points.
If one advertisement is immoral, does that mean all advertisements are immoral?
Or is this advertisement immoral BECAUSE all advertising is intrinsically immoral, regardless of its contents?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence
Bob is an idiot, yes. But does that mean we have the right to hurt him, on purpose?
Those artists had the choice back then to choose whether to illustrate a shoe add or a ciggarette ad, same as we have a choice to work on a psycho addictive game, or not.
This is an ironically sheeplike, poorly formulated, societally conditioned opinion.
You're afraid of THE MAN up in his ADVERTISING FORTRESS because marketers are not GOOD MORAL PEOPLE like YOU AND ME?
god.
dunno how many I bought.
But that's basically where my suspicion of the more subtle marketing methods comes from: self regulation of a market is NOT perfect and only works to a degree. It makes it harder for me as consumer to weed out the bad apples I don't want to buy from (or to which I don't even want to give my e-mail!)
The company running this MMO is still doing quite well overall.
Certainly that feeling is a commodity. A commodity purchased by the producer from a marketing firm. They are hired for the service of creating that "feeling" in a targeted group. Sure a consumer has a choice between a product they feel good about and one they don't. The question is, why would they? You can be given the choice between a chocolate cake and a boiled rat, but the result is always going to be the same. Even in the less extreme example of "I feel better about this otherwise identical shampoo because of the packaging over that one bottle that looks too girly" The result is the same...Why would someone choose something they don't feel good about over something they do?
I think comparing the feelings people get from media experiences vs feeling good about themselves because they bought Axe bodywash is a bit of a stretch. One product is a variable, multifaceted experience, the other is smelly, liquid soap. I might feel good about a movie because I identified with a character, or liked the story, or thought the effects were neat. I might have hated it because the characters were stupid, the dialog terrible, whatever...but my impression of the experience was shaped largely by my experiencing it. (Which is why I hate reviewers...I don't need someone else telling me something like a movie or a game is bad for a reason that is entirely personal to them. Sure there are some universal goods and bads, but I've enjoyed the hell out of some poorly reviewed movies and games often times for the very reason the reviewer hated it) It is also an experience I can continue going over and thinking about. Feeling good about buying Axe bodywash is only the comfort of knowing that, via your purchase of overpriced soap you're part of a cool/sexy/in-style/insert motivating social factor here/ group, entirely manufactured through advertising. If the group isn't manufactured then your belonging to it because of your purchase certainly is.
The issue is, something like this is utterly subjective and has almost no logical basis. A lot of people would turn it around and say the exact opposite:
One is a silly videogame and a fantasy, the other is a real, physical product.
If i said that, would either of us be right or wrong?
When it comes down to it, the ONLY fair way to handle opinions like this is to let people choose to buy what they want. And if they're stupid, they buy stupid things, that's their right.
No one is talking about doing physical harm to Bob to turn a profit.
Obviously beating Bob up and stealing his wallet is not ok.
I shouldn't need to be Bob's nurse and make the world safe for Bob to continue making his bad choices, consequence free.
We don't need a world that's safe for people to continually make bad choices.
We need people who make good choices.
Eventually Bob's bad choices will catch up to him. If not through finical mismanagement, it will be through his poor eating habits or his decision to take his new flat screen TV for a walk down a dark alley while wearing a shinny Rolex he bought with his high interest credit card.
What will probably get Bob, is suicide. Because he'll come to the stark realization that he, has been ruining his life all along and that he, is the only one that can clean it up and make it worth living.
Unfortunately the people who make good choices are often not procreating because they're making good choices... So we end up with a lot more Bob's than we do actual productive citizens.
I pretty much agree. You do have to let people choose. The problem is differentiating what they want, from what they've been told to want. I just think it's an illusion to believe that people, as a whole, are independent, well informed actors making decisions based on real qualitative differences in a world awash in virtually identical products and nearly endless forms of advertising media. I don't think advertising in and of itself is "immoral", and in so far as it's spreading awareness of a product then it's got nothing to do with morality. However I think a lot of advertising these days is really more propaganda than information.
...and come on, you're gonna shoot me down for using a subjective example and then say something like "if they're stupid, they buy stupid things"
anyway, the whole reason I got worked up about this article really had less to do with the advertising aspect and more to do with his gleeful description of how great it's going to be to live in a surveillance state.
Thats my biggest problem right there. Let's say there is a new stupid product doing gazillion cool stupid things, connects to facebook and unlocks achievements. Fine, I am not forced to buy it. BUT! You can be sure that everybody will talk about it and tell me (directly from friends, or indirectly from ads or facebook updates i am not interested in) how awesome it is. This shit happens already.
Now, I don't fall for peer pressure so I am fine, I won't buy it. But the background noise this stuff generates irritates me a huge deal. It invades my privacy somehow and confront me to the stupidity around me. I dont care what StupidBob choses, I dont even care too much about him being uneducated or whatever. But even if I am not buying the product, I become a victim of the outrageous buzz or whatnot. If marketing/advertising takes a new shape, fine, but the problem is, it also hits folks NOT buying the product.
Now you could say, lets imagine targeted advertising only displaying things that I am likely to want. Problem solved, right? Nope, because I dont want to be in a buying mood all the time. I would want to switch the minority report Ad screen OFF, and also make it disappear of my sight because it ugly. But this, I couldn't do.
That's exactly why I hated Facebook, Myspace, etc.... I heard so much about it, it got to the point that I hated it before I even used it (still haven't). A lot of things are like that to me - the more I hear about them, the less I want them...
Brian Reynolds gave a talk on his real time player metrics
( everthing down to which color links git pressed the most )
and his social virality strategy.
Didn't realize Big Huge Brian Reynolds was the Farmville/Mafia Wars creator.
Well, i guess the distinction here is that while it's annoying, it isnt really actually hurting you -- not taking away from your bank account or your health.
I totally agree that this bullshit is annoying, but not that it is HARMFUL and SHOULD BE STOPPED. that's where i'm drawing the line, i guess.
Cthuoga, same reason i made the subjective judgement i did but shot yours down -- i think it's wrong to try and make an objective judgement (this object has more value than this object...) for subjective reasons (... because i like it) -- having those subjective opinions is obviously a basic human and legally protected right in most of the world.
that's why I love adblock. Not only does it reduce screen spam, pages also load much quicker when they don't have to stream a gazillion flash ads. In a way the ad-industry brought adblock upon themselves by just becoming more and more annoying and intrusive.
I'm not sure how much of a simpleton you have to be to become more likely to buy a product because the ad's more annoying. Also the ads won't stop if you buy the product. Although there are products I'd really buy if it would stop the ads.
Marketing is fucking aweosme, as are the geniuses who work in it ->
[ame]
Watch this and try not to get excited and inspired. I dare you, you guys have souls, right? Seriously, we're a forum of creatives, where is the camaraderie for our advertising brothers.
Or this story:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:bjQl0xPNaA0J:www.unilever.com/images/es_Lifebuoy_promotes_handwashing_tcm13-13301.pdf+lifebuoy+sells+hand+washing&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi79l2WkNwoN5z6h2FLVkQSCsSl31SA7XSwBnimBrXwCjAlOA6yBO2nTT5zeKaIgHI6trGaJzmfaF9BtVN_nG7YmyKvvPfA8fGN3agp6uTHXayMTVtYJzcbdztnP4qKfzN1zlj0&sig=AHIEtbRvrOJ7Tu1NvVFoYQ3-0vLdMxConA
This isnt exactly an exciting delivery of it, so i'll summarize. In impoverished parts of africa and asia, people can't and don't know to wash their hands. People realize they can make money by selling soap. But how do you sell soap to people who aren't technologically aware that washing their hands saves lives? You educate them! Save lives, and get wealthy. Marketing at work.
Thats how you think it should be, but in reality do you think it works that way(all the time). Michael ovitz president of walt disney, explains it well ''It's not about money. The money will flow. It's about power and influence''. Their doing more than just their job, their getting involved where they shouldn't get involved. Like they get involved in politics and so on.
Their job is actually to make you uncomfortable about yourself, your body and looks(or whatever it is something negative) and say that their product solves everything wrong with you. That their products make you great and they feed your alter ego. It works well with women more cause their more concered of their looks, and if the women dont put on the make-up they face being judged by society and society WILL judge them. Like we judge people by the car they drive to the clothes they wear, and the corporations know this and take advantage.
Now not all companies do this, and it may explain why their not doing so well, as the bad guy at the top. :poly124:
It seems in business you have to be ruthless to make it up the ladder.
As for people to take ownership of their own lifes, your right they should but these companies arent helpping in any positive way.
I feel sorry for younger generations who have to grow up with this shit embedded into their social lives and assume it's natural social behavior. Hopefully our culture will get over this desire for non-stop communication and cataloging of every acquaintance they've ever met, and the desire to collect and share metadata about everything in their lives. It's stupid.
seth godin, dude!
I'm waiting for the day when we have the minority report type adverts, which personally track you, what you like, when you like it. They are working on this stuff now. How and where to track all your data, and then precision advertise, exactly what they know, what they want you to buy, and a subtle incidious method for advertising it so you buy it.
They are already starting it with the clubcards and the little offers they send you which you think great, I'll buy them. As soon as they perfect it I am legging it to the woods.
edit:
This just came out today here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/25/lads-magazines-restricted-home-office-study
I love the point about the iPad btw, this guy did a damn entertaining and enlightening presentation!
http://www.ted.com/talks/pranav_mistry_the_thrilling_potential_of_sixthsense_technology.html
Pretty nifty.
This thread is too long so I didn't read it.. I assume there's a debate between the draconian consumers and the entrepreneurial dreamers?
Confidence trumps an insecure boob job any day.
I think you need to be confident and have enough conviction to see things through, more than just be ruthless. I think there are a lot of people that are ruthless but lack the confidence and conviction to carry it out. There are a lot of successful people who wouldn't sell their grandmother for 5 bucks. You can probably do ok for yourself and treat people pretty well. I could probably put a list together if you need one.
It also depends on your definition of success. He who dies with the biggest stack of oddly colored paper wins, no rules anything goes? What if society decided that success was defined by dying with the biggest stack that wasn't made by exploiting others. That's where we're headed thanks to the latest melt down.
It's like Hoodoo, its only dangerous if you believe in it and subject yourself to it. It can be annoying sure but it only has as much power as you give it.
with the porn aid or without?
Hand or fleshlight?