This was fantastically awesome. The coming transparency is part of the same effort that gave us the print press, its the same process. The poweful have been used to hunting us in the dark with night vision goggles- like the end of Silence of the Lambs. This would reverse “shoot them in the dark nuke till they glow,” and bring us back possibly to something more like the sacrificial kings in the Golden Bough.
The constant references to “proverbs” and “Matthew” ruined it for me…totally irrelevant and unnecessary, backing up his statements with references from such a divisive and horrendously immoral work of fiction - same as referencing the Q’ran to back up your arguments…totally irrelevant. It makes about as much sense as referencing Harry Potter or Grimms fairy tales …totally detracts from the points being made
This is all aside from the fact that BBC thought for the day is highly discriminatory, in that it only allows religious “thoughts for the day”, secular, humanist thoughts are not welcome. Crap establishment programme.
WTF? Trying to meld religion with science again?..
I definitely think any of this nonsense would be totally ruinous as part of any marketing strategy.
We need many voices to reach the many ears of human diversity. Just as we need to translate the maidsafe docs and software into as many languages as possible.
So there’s nothing wrong with this IMO, even if some people don’t like it. I’m not religious, but I still think the religious references are used powerfully and effectively. The piece is not for or against religion, but uses it to help people who otherwise trust government see that this is something to be questioned, as with “the catholics used the confessional to spy on their congregation…” etc.
I think it makes these points well: beware of authority that wants to watch over everything you do, but which hides their own deeds, says trust us, says have faith in us etc.
Assange then uses Matthew to provide an alternative and for some positive image for the activist/whistleblower, as opposed to the negative propaganda (terrorist, traitor etc.) spun by current authority (against Snowden, Assange, Kirakou et al).
Lol…so Julian Assange spouting the Bible on a highly discriminatory programme, massively Establishment alligned is a good marketing strategy?..ffs
Like religion you mean…oh the hypocrisy…
Maybe this helps understand my position:
This is about reaching as many people as possible - that’s a lot of what marketing is about. If we reach people who are currently establishment believers. Win. I don’t care if we do that using establishment media, language, methods etc. So long as what we say is honest and accords with our values.
Why does it matter what secularists think about TFTD? If we can have “Secure Access For Everyone” announcing SAFE Network in The Sun, what’s wrong with our stuff suddenly being made understandable to Sun readers, despite my rather negative views about The Sun?
@AL_Kafir I don’t expect or need you to like or approve of this. We all know that you are extremely opposed to anything that isn’t “science”, and it’s ok for you to think this is a bad idea, and for others to think it’s valid.
I gave my reasoning above - it is a discriminatory programme…don’t try to spin my objection into something so ridiculous as “because its not science”. If you don’t get it then you just don’t get it.
I’m not spinning anything. I’m telling you what I understand to be your position on religion and anything you see as unscientific, and I’m saying that because it seems to me what this is about. You are free to disagree.
If you want to call that spinning, I think that’s without reason.
Forget what it “seems” like - do you think it is discriminatory and exclusive or not? If not, why not and if so, why do you think its a good marketing idea to use such a programme?
I think its a programme on the BBC that a lot of people have no objection to, in the same way as an article in The Sun, a passage of The Bible/Koran, New Scientist or any other public source.
If it was widely regarded as “bad” it probably wouldn’t be good marketing, if that’s your only concern, then I don’t see this is an issue. You seem to object to its use for marketing because you and a minority others, hold strong objections to it. If we took that approach, we might easily exclude lots of potential marketing avenues.
So, as you declined to state whether or not you found the programme to be discriminatory, I will assume you do but that it not perceived as a concern by you. Using your rationale, it would also be a good idea to enrol the BNP, Neo-Nazi’s, homophobes and mysogynist sites in our marketing campaigns - because a lot of people have no objection? Discrimination is discrimination - just because its against Atheists doesn’t make it OK or any less discriminatory.
If you can’t see this massive glaring issue in front of you, then I’m sorry, but it speaks volumes about how acceptable you seem to think discrimination against Atheists is, as opposed to other groups.
I have no opinion on it. I am willfully blind to the question because I don’t want to spend my time looking into it. I’m doing other stuff.
However, on the point I am making, I observe that The Sun is discriminatory, The Bible/Koran, etc. I object to discrimination on most grounds, but that doesn’t make it bad marketing to use references to such an item.
That is my point, and I would like you to not put words in my mouth and then offer your opinion on those words.
Lol…don’t put words in your mouth? You tried to completely misrepresent my position and I gave you an opportunity to answer but you declined. As you now state you have “no opinion” on whether the programme is discriminatory, or whether it’s ok to discriminate against Atheists, I will have to draw my own conclusions.
If the programme refused to have Muslims or Blacks on the show maybe the problem would be clearer to you.
The issue I’m talking about is suitability for marketing.
You keep talking about discrimination and your objections to it. I’m not discussing that, I’m discussion the content of the OP and any objections to references used in marketing. Instead of addressing those points, you keep returning to the issue you care about, without answering my point that it isn’t relevant to its use in this case (or other examples given), and would in fact be counter-productive if we began applying a “discrimination test” to whether we refer to material or use channels that are discriminatory in some respect, or otherwise objectionably to some.
I’ve spent enough time trying to explain that now so I’m going to leave this.
Yes, I would leave it too, given your arguments. How the hell am I not addressing the OP by suggesting that using discriminatory programmes sites etc is not going to be very efficacious as a marketing strategy?
Because you keep making the same point,“yes it is” style as if that should be enough to convince me, rather than responding to my counter arguments. But that’s enough. I’m done here thanks.
I just want to say that there’s nothing wrong with referencing, Harry Potter, or quoting Harry Potter. Artistic license in a speech is fine. It’s not an academic essay. He’s not citing the bible as support for his argument, he’s quoting it for dramatic effect. It’s about persuasion and inspiration, not watertight argument. Lots of people will find the quote from the bible somehow meaningful. He could read lyrics from Bob Marley songs or verses from the text of an ancient Greek mystery cult, and it would be fine. He is storytelling using tales that many people can relate to. Who cares what they may believe about them.
I get that…the programme is discriminatory though - that is the issue as far as I’m concerned. My question would be, would you be as comfortable using the programme for marketing purposes if it refused to have Muslims or Blacks on the show? If no, then why not, because it is exactly the same thing?
What exactly is it that you are calling racist? Assange quoting the Bible?
I mean I realize that your handle is Al Kafir, but, come on man. Not all religion is bad.