Yeah, they used paid models to do some weird shit who took the job and by hashtagging it, retweeting it and sharing it on Lemmy you just put the PaloAlto logo in front of millions more people...
Its almost like their plan worked perfectly
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
420 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
6810 readers
2011 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Or we call out this weird shit loudly, don’t treat it like some “companies will be companies” thing, and maybe the people who would have worked with PaloAlto previously will reconsider working with the weird company that tried to present women as objects.
Not talking about this stuff is what got us here in the first place.
So if one of the models was a man in a suit with a lampshade on their head you would have no problem and this would be perfectly normal?
Here, boys, girls and everyone in between, we can see a textbook example of a strawman fallacy; you made up a scenario that is not the one being discussed, then you assigned OP a reaction to that made up scenario that you cannot know if it is true -as that is not what OP is reacting to- and that made up position is what your comment is criticizing.
We don't know OP's reaction to men in lampshades because that is not what we are seeing in the picture, we are seeing two women dressed as lampshades, so, as long as new, different pictures do not show up, OP and me will think that Palo Alto treat women as objects, we might change our position if new information goes out, but for now, that is what we have to judge.
And -before you try it again-, no I would not think it is OK if those were two men, neither if those were a man and a woman, or a kid and a parent or two grandpa's or two grannies... Should I keep making up scenarios so you can focus on the one at hand? Or is this enough?
Not the person that asked the question, but I am someone who asks those types of questions:
They asked if you would feel the same if the only thing that was different was it being a man in a suit instead of a woman in a cocktail dress. They're trying to understand where exactly your objection lies - and you did answer, at the end, which is useful. It seems like your objection to this display is in fact in presenting people as objects; not just because it's women, not because of their clothing, not because of where it is or who's doing the hiring. Is that right?
But the question was not a strawman, ~~or insincere; it was a valid comparison question which appears to be from someone looking for an answer. I think you read aggression into it that was not there~~. Edit: Okay, I understand why you'd take that impression on the re-read and I can't say for sure it wasn't insincere, I'm just giving the benefit of the doubt. They need to work on their communication skills, but that's hardly uncommon, and it doesn't make the question a strawman.
Another question then, and this one is also sincere: there are plenty of art installations that present people as objects in some way. Is that fine in your book? If so, is this objectionable because it's advertising? I would think you're fine with it in art of i had to guess, but I've been surprised before!
It was definitely a loaded or insincere question. The use of "you would" instead of "would you" suggests that the person who is asking this question has already made up their mind about OP's opinion. And no, I don't think that was a typo, a Freudian slip maybe, but not a typo.
Re-reading the post, I absolutely agree that it was phrased badly and unfairly ascribed a view to @Dentzy they hadn't espoused, but I still don't think it was fair to characterise it as a strawman. As to malice, I find Hanlon's Razor to hold more true than Occam's, and I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt wherever reasonable if I'm up to it.
Personally, I find @Dentzy's opinion that it wouldn't be okay in any scenario (meaning with any combination of people) a little odd. The specific problems for women in tech make this carry connotations that wouldn't be there if it were adult men under the lampshades for example. But, I can understand and generally agree with the idea that "presenting people as objects is not okay", even if I would put an asterisk on it because I think there's artistic value in that presentation in some situations (for example, as an illustration of the way that rich people or corporations view the majority of us).
A strawman argument is still a strawman even if there was no malicious intent and it was made through ignorance of making a proper argument.
The phrasing isn't just poor, though, it has a connotation/implication that can only be learned through social context. There's absolutely aggressive intention with the phrasing. At the very least a "gotcha" attempt. Maybe they were raised in that environment and thus are uneducated and generally antagonistic, but then Hanlon's Razor would extend to any acts of hate.
I always like to ask "are you being judgemental or curious?" (Thanks, Ted Lasso)
It's not a strawman argument, though. The question does not follow the pattern:
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
- Person 1 asserts proposition X.
- Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
Now I will quote the post to show that it does not follow the pattern:
So if one of the models was a man in a suit with a lampshade on their head you would have no problem and this would be perfectly normal?
There's no statement that the argument being made is that "it would be fine if the actors were male instead of female". The poster is asking a question, to paraphrase: "is this what you're saying?". This is a common way to phrase this question (even if it is not a good way to phrase it) when asking it honestly, so it would be unfair to assume the worst interpretation.
Here, boys, girls, and everything in between...
When calling someone out, it's best not to be condescending yourself in your opening. You didn't elevate the discussion with that, you invited them to a slap fight.
And like the other person said so well, there is sincere reason for the question. But you clearly don't want to engage honestly and instead be dismissive yourself.
load more comments
(1 replies)
100% correct, but your comment won't supercede theirs or the other misguided ones.
Wait those rnt mannequins??
why use objects when you can literally objectify women
I had this discussion when Tiger Woods’ affair, et. al., was in the news. My friend argued the classic, “No such thing as bad press.”
And I disagreed.
So they finally upgraded it.
Where can I purchase the upgrade?
Even if we accept the idea that “booth babes” are a legitimate marketing ploy, this symbolic blinding-and-deafening of them and removing their faces (symbolically, their humanity) is superfuckingweird.
Seriously, how this got through to execution is pretty shameful.
It's happy hour, having a lamp shade on your head while drunk at a house party is a very old media trope, you are reaching SO hard.
You normally dress up in slinky black dress and stand motionless in front of some advertising for a multi-billion dollar computer company at these house parties?
This is a shame too, as Paloalto has some good products. Now they have a layer of "skeeve" slathered on.
For men. It's a very old trope for men.
Because women in the 1950s when the trope started wouldn't put something stupid on their heads. Even if they were drunk.
You're rationalizing SO hard.
I use to be in corporate sales, did a lot of conferences. Even in the most "professional" corporations the sales team culture is pretty garbage. My company was a little bit wilder than the others so I know the kinds of people that would be capable of doing this type of shit. The only way I can describe is as shock value, kinda "look what we did haha" and Im pretty sure thats whats going on here. Pretty childish.
Wonder how much per hour lamps make
Depends on which ones:
Booth babes are mostly making minimum wage + 50% to be hired as a model. ~$20 usd
If you see her name anywhere she's getting an appearance fee $1000/hr+ but that usually applies to local celebrities or hired talent.
Probably more than me tbh
Dunno, but these lamps probably make about half of what regular lamps make.
Looks like someone managed to work their forniphilia kink into the event booth. I don't even know how this would tie back to Palo Alto in the slightest
omg i completely forgot it had a name i had just been calling it jd vance syndrome
It actually a secret indictment of the objectification of women.
Hence the lampshading.
To be fair I'm a man and have ended a few evenings out with a lampshade on my head
This has more to do with cybersecurity than you think: Anyone who thinks this booth is related to cybersecurity urgently needs cybersecurity advice.
What does the company think it's saying with this?
This is undoubtedly a cocaine fueled decision.
Long drag off of 13th consecutive cigarette
"Yeah man, yeah! And then we can have sexy lamp bitches at the entrance and a guy doing chainsaw ice sculpting and..."
idk, maybe that women have a bright mind.
But I don't think they want us to tell anything at all, other than that it's marketing that makes people look.
As long as they're getting paid well to do a job they want to do and have breaks, I don't see the problem. It's a job and in this capitalist world, bills have to be paid somehow. Pretty low effort way to earn some money.
I'd stand around in a dress with a lampshade on my head if you paid me a living wage.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Anyone caring about this has a different problem that needs addressing.
Outta curiosity, are you a man?
What problem is that?
Guys I think Graendal isn't bound in Shayol Ghul anymore.
Should have had a dude too
Is it weird that I kinda want one of those hats
view more: next ›