I’m still not quite clear on how it’s wrong to focus greater scrutiny on a political action group that bases their ideology on; “taxes are theft”, “the federal government can’t be trusted” and “we can pursue our agenda by threatening violence, lying and misrepresenting the truth”.
That would be like smoke accusing you of unfairly targeting it with an investigation to see if it’s in possession of fire.
I’ve come to realize that the new one channel layout is designed to feature perhaps 2-3 channels while the rest fall by the wayside.
I think it’s why my video viewing habits have dropped to almost nil.
I like to have choices. I don’t like being herded like cattle.
I’ve gone to the home page and for a month straight the largest channel I’m subscribed to (MinnesotaBurns) has been featured at the top every time.
Yet I almost never watch his videos.
The second choice is usually TheOnion. Both are good channels but why do they always get pole position if I never watch them? Sometimes my videos make it into the “recommended to watch” list which is just stupid. Why the hell would I want to watch my own videos? (err… you know what I mean.)
The rest (which you have to scroll down for) are a haphazard mix of channels some of which haven’t made videos in months.
I guess this format works well for people who like to be gently told what to do but it doesn’t sit well with us more individualistic types.
In an attempt to drive up more publicity A Voice For Men (AVFM) has posted the following captioned picture on their site.
It’s designed to bring attention to the problem of false rape accusations.
There have been a number of reactions to this piece of marketing designed to promote the AVFM message. Powerful imagery with a simple (and thus rather vague) statement that leaves it entirely up to the viewer just what they take away from it. It’s a fine example of political advertising.
Rather than respond with words I’ve decided to respond to their captioned picture with one of my own.
Here it is.
Interestingly enough I’d originally gone with this version;
Which while I found to be equally effective it didn’t have quite the same impact as my above image (as a response to the AVFM captioned picture).
Creators of the Original “Don’t Be That Girl” image. ***Note: I’ve received a confirmation from an AVFM staff member regarding a comment that states they did not create the “Don’t Be That Girl” image.***