My late father was the one who taught me to be cynical about advertising, for all that putting up ads was literally his whole job. He taught me from a very young age that advertising is expensive, and they tack that cost onto the price. That if something is heavily advertised, you can count on the fact that there's an identical product out there, usually even manufactured in the same factory, that's cheaper because they don't spend all that money on advertising.
A German friend walked me through Lidl, turning over items to show the factories where the items were manufactured and what expensive brands they correspond to, we did taste tests on some of the more pricey food things later and they were the same product. learning about food manufacturing was a hobby for her.
European glasses and sunglasses are made in the same Italian factories that make the luxury ones, they have the same quality control and warranty. You are paying €100 for a logo.
Some things cost more because they are actually made with better quality materials and where the workers are properly compensated, others are the same product as the off brand version with the brand name markup. It takes a lifetime to learn the intricacies which is why consumer advocacy associations and legal protection by (truly) independent agencies is crucial.
i mean he had been out here since 1988 dropping such bombs:
"'fandom' is a vehicle of marginalized subcultural groups (women, the young, gays, etc.) to pry open space for their cultural concerns within dominant representations; it is a way of appropriating media texts and rereading them in a way that serves different interests, a way of transforming mass culture into a popular culture"
Jenkins, Henry. “Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten: Fan Writing as Textual Poaching.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 5, no. 2 (1988): 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295038809366691.
there are even some earlier works in fan studies but that’s what i have ready to hand.
One of the interchangeable ghouls running in 2024 is talking up his plan to tie voting rights to passing a civics test & it's amazing watching people discuss this in neutral terms
ALT
A lot of the response to this is "oh, that's great, next let's restore civics education in schools", but the entire point is that they're not going to improve civics education. The age range gives a hint: this is a ploy to disenfranchise young voters, by, presumably, demanding they pass a test the state won't train them for in order to get rights granted by the states. It's like saying "oh, yes, literacy tests for voting makes sense, it'll really inspire the South to educate black people". It uh. Didn't. And I think many of the people agreeing know that and support it bc it's disenfranchising, but some seem to just agree bc it's "COMMON SENSE" and they're not digging any deeper?
This would be a civics test authored by a far right administration, to be clear. The tests we give immigrants are already propagandistic nonsense, imagine that in the hands of the "slavery taught people valuable skills" crowd
Also, his amendment would allow young people who can't pass the test to vote if they join the military. This is a "service guarantees citizenship" amendment