ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 11226|回复: 57

[阅读小分队] 【Native Speaker每日综合训练—34系列】【34-17】文史哲 Gay

[精华]   [复制链接]
发表于 2014-4-6 21:47:56 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
Stay tuned to our latest post! Follow us here---> http://weibo.com/u/3476904471

这一期的话题是有关同性恋的。
Speaker很有感染,说者从自身经历循循善诱,告诉我们他们的世界是什么样的。
Speed是有关Mozilla CEO 因为曾为反同组织筹资而遭非议,辞去高管职务。在这里其实更像说的是:在面对热门事件更重要的是多想几步,多站在几个角度上想问题,心态会更沉稳,认识会更客观。
Obstacle是从Honey Maid 的新同志家庭广告为切入点,讲到实际上很多人士反同动机非纯,实际上是求得同情来赚的盆满钵满~
对于同性恋问题不好多做评述,仅提供傅雷先生的一句话:
参差多态乃是幸福之源。
英国业已通过同性恋婚姻法,如果当年的世风如当今这样宽容,哥哥或许便不会死了~~~
鉴于这次的话题过于严肃,附赠一个小礼物:龙应台写的《我们为什么要学习文史哲》
http://www.douban.com/group/topic/22369694/
enjoy~~

Part I: Speaker

Fifty shades of gay

[Rephrase 1]


[Dialogue:18:18]

Source: Ted
https://www.ted.com/talks/io_tillett_wright_fifty_shades_of_gay

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
 楼主| 发表于 2014-4-6 21:47:57 | 显示全部楼层
Part II: Speed



Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values

The forced resignation of Brendan Eich will have a chilling effect on political discourse.

BY Jessica Morris
[Time2]

A half-dozen years ago, Brendan Eich donated $1,000 to the campaign for Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that set out to ban same-sex marriage. It passed with 52 percent of the vote, but was later overturned by the courts.

I hated and opposed that ballot initiative. That same year, in fact, I spent more time arguing in favor of gay marriage than any other issue. In private, I tried to persuade various family members and acquaintances that they ought to cast ballots against Proposition 8. At Culture11, a now-defunct web magazine where I worked, my boss Joe Carter and I went countless rounds during spirited intra-office debates about whether there was, in fact, a strong conservative case for gay marriage, a position that I maintained and that he rejected. And I published a lot of pro-gay marriage commentary for public consumption.

Discussing the issue with such frequency, in public and private, as far back as 2003 or 2004, I've had many occasions to observe that an individual's position on the policy question turns out to be a flawed proxy for his or her attitude toward gays and lesbians. Gay-marriage supporters may have been more likely to be tolerant of gays. But I encountered people who'd say things like, "Look, I don't want gays looking at me in the shower at the gym, but why should I care if they want to marry each other?" And I also encountered gay-marriage opponents who were, apart from opposing marriage equality, model parents to gay sons or daughters, exceptionally supportive to gay friends, and wonderful bosses to gay subordinates. This will seem perfectly rational to some readers and weirdly inconsistent to others. (For the latter, note that people are often weirdly inconsistent.)  

[289 words]

[Time 3]

These interactions came to mind on Thursday, when Eich, the pro-Proposition 8 donor, stepped down as CEO of Mozilla, a company he co-founded, because various stakeholders at the company objected to his political donation from six years ago.

At that time, a majority of Californians and an even bigger majority of Americans, including Barack Obama, the commander-in-chief who "evolved" to end the ban on gays and lesbians in the military, believed that gay marriage ought to be illegal. (In fact, that same year, around 40 percent of Americans thought gay sex should be illegal.) Now? "The backlash against Mozilla, which produces the Firefox Web browser, included calls for his resignation from developer groups and Mozilla's employees," the San Jose Mercury News reported, "as well as a widely discussed block on Firefox browsers by the dating site OKCupid, which asked users to switch their choice of Web browsers to show their support for gay marriage."

Eich was not saved by a blog post he wrote making these commitments to Mozilla employees:

Active commitment to equality in everything we do, from employment to events to community-building.
Working with LGBT communities and allies, to listen and learn what does and doesn’t make Mozilla supportive and welcoming.
My ongoing commitment to our Community Participation Guidelines, our inclusive health benefits, our anti-discrimination policies, and the spirit that underlies all of these.
My personal commitment to work on new initiatives to reach out to those who feel excluded or who have been marginalized in ways that makes their contributing to Mozilla and to open source difficult. More on this last item below.

[266 words]

[Time 4]

In other words, no one had any reason to worry that Eich, a longtime executive at the company, would do anything that would negatively affect gay Mozilla employees. In fact, Mozilla Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker, his longtime business partner who now defends the need for his resignation, said this about discovering that he gave money to the Proposition 8 campaign: "That was shocking to me, because I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness." It's almost as if that donation illuminated exactly nothing about how he'd perform his professional duties.

But no matter.

Calls for his ouster were premised on the notion that all support for Proposition 8 was hateful, and that a CEO should be judged not just by his or her conduct in the professional realm, but also by political causes he or she supports as a private citizen.

If that attitude spreads, it will damage our society.  

Consider an issue like abortion, which divides the country in a particularly intense way, with opponents earnestly regarding it as the murder of an innocent baby and many abortion-rights supporters earnestly believing that a fetus is not a human life, and that outlawing it is a horrific assault on a woman's bodily autonomy. The political debate over abortion is likely to continue long past all of our deaths. Would American society be better off if stakeholders in various corporations began to investigate leadership's political activities on abortion and to lobby for the termination of anyone who took what they regard to be the immoral, damaging position?

It isn't difficult to see the wisdom in inculcating the norm that the political and the professional are separate realms, for following it makes so many people and institutions better off in a diverse, pluralistic society. The contrary approach would certainly have a chilling effect on political speech and civic participation, as does Mozilla's behavior toward Eich.
[326 words]


[Time 5]

Its implications are particularly worrisome because whatever you think of gay marriage, the general practice of punishing people in business for bygone political donations is most likely to entrench powerful interests and weaken the ability of the powerless to challenge the status quo. There is very likely hypocrisy at work too. Does anyone doubt that had a business fired a CEO six years ago for making a political donation against Prop 8, liberals silent during this controversy (or supportive of the resignation) would've argued that contributions have nothing to do with a CEO's ability to do his job? They'd have called that firing an illiberal outrage, but today they're averse to vocally disagreeing with allies.

Most vexing of all is Mozilla's attempt to present this forced resignation as if it is consistent with an embrace of diversity and openness. Its public statements have been an embarrassment of illogic, as I suspect the authors of those statements well know. "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech," the company wrote. "Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."

This is a mess.

Proposition 8 was overturned. Gay marriage is legal in California. Having a CEO who opposed gay marriage now would in no way diminish equal marriage rights for gays.

And equality is not "necessary for meaningful speech," unless you think the speech of Martin Luther King Jr., to take one example, was not in fact meaningful. The sloppy logic here is indicative of a company doing damage control, one trying to placate its critics but implicitly disrespecting them by doing so with nonsense.

"Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness," the statement goes on. "We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all." But the company is plainly taking the position that it won't employ, in leadership positions, anyone who publicly holds orthodox Christian or Muslim views on gay marriage.

Agree or disagree, they aren't being welcoming of "everyone." They should have the courage to say so.

[336 words]

[Time 6]

The statement continues, "our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public." But this forced resignation sends exactly the opposite message: that if you want to get ahead at Mozilla, you best say nothing about any controversial political issue, which could affect your career, whether now or years from now in a changed political environment.

Mozilla says, "While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better." Again, Mozilla's actions will undercut tough conversations by making fewer people willing to engage in them. If you believe that an open, robust public discourse makes the world better, as they purport to, they've made the world worse. This action is a betrayal of their values, not a reflection of them.

At least that's what this Mozilla user and fervent gay-marriage proponent believes. In that same statement, Mozilla states, "We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves. We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better."

I wonder if, now that I'm upset, Mozilla will move quickly to engage me. I wonder if they'll engage Andrew Sullivan, who wrote, "This is a repugnantly illiberal sentiment. It is also unbelievably stupid for the gay rights movement. You want to squander the real gains we have made by argument and engagement by becoming just as intolerant of others’ views as the Christianists? You’ve just found a great way to do this. It’s a bad, self-inflicted blow. And all of us will come to regret it."

Do they believe in engagement in principle, as they claim? Or do they regard the gay-marriage proponents threatening boycotts to be more worthy of engagement?

Some of the people responsible for this forced resignation have offered their own conclusion:

[334 words]

[The rest]

First, I want to say how absolutely sad to hear that Brendan Eich stepped down. I guess this counts as some kind of “victory,” but it doesn’t feel like it. We never expected this to get as big as it has and we never expected that Brendan wouldn’t make a simple statement... People think we were upset about his past vote. Instead we were more upset with his current and continued unwillingness to discuss the issue with empathy. Seriously, we assumed that he would reconsider his thoughts on the impact of the law (not his personal beliefs), issue an apology, and then he’d go on to be a great CEO.

The fact it ever went this far is really disturbing to us.

The Mozilla blog post really warmed our hearts. We’ve been working directly with Mozilla and Brendan to try and find a positive resolution to this. We really do love the Open Web and to see it threatened by this issue was heartbreaking for us as advocates of both open source software and our own equality under the law.

We think Mozilla put it the best: “Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.” That’s exactly how we have felt. We absolutely believe people should be allowed to have personal opinions, but we also believe that we are allowed to disagree and to try and change someone’s mind by expressing our own personal story.

Those words make me think that the people who wrote them like to think of themselves as the sort of people who do the right thing. The hint of humanity is there. But they're evasive words, and their authors don't have the courage of their convictions. They didn't merely "try and change someone's mind" by expressing their personal story. Disinclined to stop at personal persuasion, they waged a pressure campaign that could be summed up as "change your mind, or else."

Now that the ultimatum has been rejected, they're not taking their share of responsibility for the outcome. They should face and own up to the fact that they helped force out a CEO solely because he disagreed with them about same-sex marriage. Put in their position, I'd feel uneasy about admitting that too. The rise of marriage equality is a happy, hopeful story. This is an ugly, illiberal footnote, appended by the winners.

[419 words]
Source:the Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/

Reference:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/03/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
 楼主| 发表于 2014-4-6 21:47:58 | 显示全部楼层
Part III: Obstacle



HONEY MAID AND THE BUSINESS OF LOVE
POSTED BY ANDREW SOLOMON
[Paraphrase 7]

For a long time, prejudice made a certain business sense. You could argue that it was immoral or wrong; others insisted that it was moral and godly. But there was little dispute about the business piece of it. Bill Clinton liked gay people, but he signed the Defense of Marriage Act nonetheless. Karl Rove knew it was smart to put all those anti-gay-marriage initiatives on the ballot. Coors beer could advertise in gay magazines while funding anti-gay interests and keeping any hint of the “non-traditional” out of the ads it ran for general audiences. The regressive side in the so-called culture wars was presumed to include a majority of American consumers; businesses, worried about their image, tended to defer to them.

Now, Honey Maid, that old-fashioned brand of graham crackers, has launched an ad that shows, in the most radical and moving way of any national campaign so far, how much that has changed. It shows a two-dad family, a rocker family, a single dad, an interracial family, a military family. The two-dad household is featured at some length; you cannot be distracted away from it. Most striking is the tagline of the ad: “No matter how things change, what makes us wholesome never will. Honey Maid. Everyday wholesome snacks for every wholesome family. This is wholesome.” The ad is deeply heartwarming—not simply because it shows diversity (which other companies have done) but because it labels these families with the word “wholesome,” which is exactly the kind of word that tends to get claimed by the evangelical right. People have long suggested that the new structures of the American family are “unwholesome” as a way of rationalizing intolerance. The idea of what is “against nature” has been central to messages of prejudice about both interracial relationships and homosexuality.

Honey Maid knew its ad would provoke controversy, and it did. So the company has made a follow-up spot that has been released on social media. “On March 10th, 2014, Honey Maid launched ‘This is wholesome,’ a commercial that celebrates all families,” the online short proclaims. “Some people didn’t agree with our message.” Viewers see close-ups of tweets and e-mails with remarks such as “Horrible, NOT ‘WHOLESOME,’” “DO NOT APPROVE!,” and “Disgusting!!” The title card says, “So we asked two artists to take the negative comments and turn them into something else.” We then see thirty-year-olds Linsey Burritt and Crystal Grover, who collaborate under the name INDO, taking a printout of each hateful comment and rolling it into a tube, then grouping the tubes at one end of a vast, industrial-looking space to create an assemblage that spells out “Love.” The artists appear to walk away, their work done. Then the online ad proclaims, “But the best part was all the positive messages we received. Over ten times as many.” Then we see e-mails with epithets such as “family is family” and “love the Honey Maid ad” and “this story of a beautiful family” and “most beautiful thing.” The entire room fills up with tubes made from these messages. Finally, we are told, “Proving that only one thing really matters when it comes to family … ,” and then we see the word “love” embraced by a roomful of paper tubes. The pacing of the spot is impeccable: the first half turns hatred into love, and the second half provides evidence of love itself. In its first day online, it garnered more than 1.5 million views.

To arrive at the “ten times” statistic, the team used industry-standard “linguistic resource classification,” which is to say that it scanned for the frequency of words such as “excessive,” “miss,” “wrong,” “ridiculous,” “wasted,” “degrading,” “evil,” “crap,” and “ugly” versus “yay,” “best,” “love,” “happy,” “great,” “amazing,” “beautiful,” “like,” “you rock!,” and “heartwarming.” For safety, the artists read every e-mail that they used in their installation to make sure, for example, that an e-mail that said “so not beautiful” didn’t make it into the positive group.

Burritt and Grover were chosen because, according to a spokesman for Droga 5, the ad agency that designed the campaign, “They could blend sustainable practice, innovative design and thoughtful collaboration to help bring the Love Sculpture to life with recycled paper.” Burritt and Grover have occupied an interesting space between advertising and art: Burritt studied graphic design and worked in package production, while Grover studied interior design and worked in store design. Their primary work has been window displays in Chicago. Their history is one of aesthetically striking visual stunts, yet the force of moral conviction radiates from their work for Honey Maid.

Advertising both follows and leads to change. Marketers’ objective is to sell things, and they will seldom be brave enough to jeopardize their own interests, but their own interests appear to be changing. At some quiet moment when “Modern Family” was reaping good ratings, the mentality of corporate America began to change. Cheerios ran an ad last summer that showed an interracial family and received an astonishing amount of vitriol—nearly fifty years after Loving v. Virginia. Some of the responses to its posting on General Mills”s YouTube channel were so odious that General Mills actually disabled the comments. When General Mills did a second ad in the series featuring the same family, it hired screeners to sort through the YouTube comments and remove the most bilious. It debuted during the Super Bowl, in February.

Coca-Cola mounted an ad, also shown during the Super Bowl, that featured people singing “America the Beautiful” in seven languages. It showed many kinds of families—including a quick shot of two dads with their child. It was easy to miss that family if you weren’t looking for it, and the vitriol expressed against Coca-Cola focused on what people believed was the subliminal pro-immigration message, even more than on the gay piece of it. Fox News Radio host Todd Starnes tweeted, “Coca Cola is the official soft drink of illegals crossing the border.” Allen West, the former congressman, wrote that the ad indicated that “we are on the road to perdition.”

It’s striking, and perhaps not entirely coincidental, that the Coca-Cola and Honey Maid ads have appeared in the same season in which Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, vetoed S.B. 1062, anti-gay legislation that had passed her state’s legislature. Her veto came partly at the behest of senators who had belatedly understood the bill’s financial consequences. Regard for equal human rights did not drive Brewer; the threat of losing the Super Bowl did. (How did the Super Bowl become the nexus of gay rights?) It turns out that tolerating gay people is good for business, even in Arizona. I’d prefer that people such as I get our rights because we command respect and evince dignity, but if we get them because there’s money in it, that’s fine.

But how crushing that in the same week that Honey Maid has made history, we have the passage, in Mississippi, of S.B. 2681, signed into law Thursday, which takes the same tack as the vetoed Arizona bill but in very careful terms, allowing those with religious rationales to act out their bigotry, and enjoining government from interfering when they do so. I suppose that Mississippi, which doesn’t have an N.F.L. team, didn’t worry about not getting the Super Bowl. The anti-L.G.B.T. Family Research Council has taken credit for the passage of the bill, writing that its efforts

helped to bring along the business community—which, in Arizona, was so deceived by the media and outside leftist groups.… Mississippi companies didn’t have that problem, because the state tuned out the propaganda.

Where Mississippi has gone, other states will likely follow. With no federal jobs or housing protections, with no ENDA, gay people are vulnerable to such oppression. Being good for business gets us only so far. What, then, of Honey Maid? What, then, of making the word love out of all that hatred? It will take more than a pair of talented installation artists to bring about such a transformation on a national scale.

[1338 words]
Source:Newyorker
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/04/honey-maid-and-the-business-of-love.html

Reference:
the ad we talked about in the article above


本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
发表于 2014-4-6 21:48:41 | 显示全部楼层
沙发~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LX,我好久没沙发了,看见沙发有的丧心病狂

Speaker: The speaker pretend to be a boy when she was young.Though she fell in love with a girl then a man.She considered herself as a second-class citizen for her homosexual.She wants to find out what really she is.So she began to take pictures for those who are not 100% straight.In these photos,people are judged just by their face.Humanity exists in everyone.We have already been what we are.Gay should be treated equally.

01:52
An individual's pisotion on the policy question may be different from his or her attitude to LGBT.

01:37
Eich was forced to resingation for his political donation six years ago.Since most americans support gay marriage now.His blog post does not save him.

02:01
Actually the donation illustrates nothing about how he will perform in his duty.But anyone who support Proposition 8 are hateful.A ceo is not judged only by his professional realms but also by his political causes.But this attitude is not a good one.

02:03
This action is really a mess.Equality is not necessary for meaningful speech.And the statement of the company is that they welcome diversity and inclusiveness.Their action is opposite.

01:38
Their action is a betrayal of their values and statements.They just want to let the users and gay propents to believe.

06:55
Main Idea: The ad of Honey Maid is more than bussiness
A new ad of Honey Maid about a gay family and love was released on the internet recently.Describe the content of the ad and reflection of viewers.Most of the viewers support this ad and think it is heartwarming.The ad want to show love and wholesome of family to the society with business.This ad bring debate as well as change to the society. Marketing is more than selling things now.Ads of Coca-cola also has sth in common.Describe the this ad.Companies should pay attention to these vulnerable groups.
 楼主| 发表于 2014-4-6 21:51:21 | 显示全部楼层
疏离你不要太快啊,我的板凳
speaker:
most people are between the gay and the straight,we call them grey.
you can just treat them as ordinary people
发表于 2014-4-6 22:08:09 | 显示全部楼层
哈哈哈,地板~~~

Speaker:
The speaker talks about LGBT situation. She wasn't asked by her parents to define herself, even though she fall in love with a girl when she was 15 and with a man three years later.
But the great marriage equality debate makes her to think about what she actually was, so she make a series of very simple portraits of people who is not 100 percent straight, her goal is to show the humanity that exists in every one of us through the simplicity of a face and she hope it makes it harder to deny their human rights.

Time2: 1'58"
Time3: 1'45"
Time4: 2'15"
Time5: 2'31"
Time6: 2'16"
Proposition 8 is the California ballot initiative that set out to ban same-sex marriage. It passed with 52 percent of the vote, but was later overturned by the courts.
Eich, the pro-Proposition 8 donor, stepped down as CEO of Mozilla, a company he co-founded, because various stakeholders at the company objected to his political donation from six years ago.
Calls for his ouster were premised on the notion that all support for Proposition 8 was hateful, and that a CEO should be judged not just by his or her conduct in the professional realm, but also by political causes he or she supports as a private citizen.If that attitude spreads, it will damage our society.
Mozilla's attempt to present this forced resignation as if it is consistent with an embrace of diversity and openness. But this is a mess.

Obstacle: 9'31"
For a long time, prejudice made a certain business sense.
Honey Maid, that old-fashioned brand of graham crackers, has launched an ad that shows how much that has changed. It shows a two-dad family.
Advertising both follows and leads to change. Marketers’ objective is to sell things, and they will seldom be brave enough to jeopardize their own interests, but their own interests appear to be changing. It turns out that tolerating gay people is good for business.


发表于 2014-4-6 22:20:00 | 显示全部楼层
lalala~~~~~~~~
-------------
谢谢楼主!~

speaker:
we sometimes put ourselves into some boxes but the boxes are so limited
the woman pretend to be a boy when she was young
in her country, she is considered the second class citizen
how people judge others just one factor
through photograph, people can be judges only on shape,to find humanity simply on the face
the preference does not exist
human being are not the only dimension
the judgement standard is blur
we have already been what we are, so do not regret about us and just follow our heart

time2:2:09
people may be inconsistent about their attitude towards gays and lesbians

time3:1:42
the inconsistency occurred on the other field
many people show their opposite to the gay marriage however the web browser asked users to switch their choice to show their support for gay marriage

time4:2:11
we need to judge an executive not only on his business performance,but also on his behavior as a private citizen
the discussion about the attitude towards abortion

time5:3:01
the performance of CEO may have nothing to do with the culture of the company
everyone has his courage and right to say no

time6:1:52
the so-called freedom in fact force people hind their true ideas because they want to save their career
the reason why citizens are angry about the company is that the company is not consistent with its culture

time7:6:37
an new ad made byHM has rose controversy on the internet
the company want to convey the meaning of wholesome and love to the society
it is coincident that many company choose to use some family to make their ads during the period of deciding the gay marriage law
it is good for company pay attention to some specific group of people, however are these ads enough to change the notions of citizens?and whether the country can provide a equal atmosphere for gay people for them to live and work

真的是太巧,早上刷微博才刚看到HM那个广告,所以广告内容那里基本就是扫了一下~

发表于 2014-4-7 00:01:33 | 显示全部楼层
DDDDDDDDDDDDD
---------------------------------------------------------
你喜欢上,爱上,一个人,ta不过恰好是一个男人,或者一个女人。
所以不是同性恋的事,或者异性恋的事,不过一个人,爱上了另外一个人。
---------------------------------------------------------
掌管 5        00:02:12.53        00:10:41.27
掌管 4        00:02:48.91        00:08:28.73
掌管 3        00:01:55.16        00:05:39.82
掌管 2        00:01:43.58        00:03:44.66
掌管 1        00:02:01.07        00:02:01.07

发表于 2014-4-7 07:29:37 | 显示全部楼层
首页!!!!!!!!!!!!我觉得那个两个爸爸的广告拍得好有爱的但是上帝貌似不这么认为。。。
----------------------------------------------------
Speaker: The speaker tried to be a boy when she was young. She felt that she is a second-class citizen because she is
         a homosexual. She made a video of many photos of people. She stated that there are many different shades of gay
         and all homosexual deserve equal treaty and they are just like our neighbor and fellows.

time2: 1min 56"
time3: 2min 05"
time4: 2min 26"
time5: 2min 48"
time6: 2min 27"
The rest: 2min 38"

Obstacle: 10min 54"
Usually commercials are kept any hint of the "non-traditional" out of the sight of general audiences. But Honey Maid
has just launched a commercial that described the daily life of a two-dad family and called it "wholesome". The ad
caused a huge debate. Someone liked it but others stronly opposed their view. Honey maid hired two artists to turn
hatred into love and show the love word to the public. The writer thinks that marketers' objective is to sell things
and the commercials about homosexuals may due to the change of the society. Then the writer gave an example of an ad
of Coca-Cola at the Super Bowl to compare to the ad of Honey Maid.
发表于 2014-4-7 09:30:08 | 显示全部楼层
time2 2:08
there was a ballot t ban the gay-marriage.i am a defender of that ballot.
time3 2:06
the interactions start since E' resign.
many Americans thought gay-marriage isillegal.
E's writing in blog doesn't save him.
time4 2:40
political and professional are differentrealms. if we don't treat them separately, that approach would has a chillingeffect.
time5 2:20
??
leaders can't demur gay-marriage.
time6 1:55
??
the rest 2:18
the opponents' concluded that E's resignupset them.
the obstacle
an advertisement depict 2 dad family andlabel it wholesome.
The advertisement is controversy, then, thecompany invites 2 artists to distinguish the positive and non-positive data.
why coca cola also release an advertisementabout gay-family.
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-3-28 19:19
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部