By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Washington Post: Is your spin class too young, too thin and too white?

 

How do you feel about your spin class?

Yes 0 0%
 
No 4 40.00%
 
The meaning of peace is t... 6 60.00%
 
Total:10
John2290 said:
StarOcean said:

It’s alarming you can this much while not being a beneficiary. And because you aren’t, I’m calling your bluff. They aren’t losing much by trimming the crap 

Because I don't contribute with a paid subscription I am somehow a lesser of a benefit to the site than those who do? Lets say 5 percent of the site contribute money but the other 95 percent of the site stop clicking, stop refreshing, stop posting? What happens? No more site. 

Way to miss the point. You don’t get profit from the site. Them making money or not should not concern you. This is a shit thread that needs to be locked.



Around the Network
StarOcean said:
sundin13 said:
Just finished the article. It seems to be a fairly well written but overall fairly uninteresting piece in the Style section of WaPo. I struggle to see anything of substance to comment about, or more broadly, why this was even posted.

Look beyond the article and look at the user. That’s when you find intent. The user, check his history. What does it say about him? More than that, look at his threads. Before this thread it was: Do you consume soy?, How video games are fueling the far-right, Britain’s ‘Worst Ever’ child grooming scandal, NK talks about abandoning it’s Nuclear Weapons, Italian Election Results, US to overtake Russia/Saudi as top Oil Producer, etc etc: On top of gems such as “New World Order”. 

He does it to stroke the fears of the scared, anger the marginalized, and divide the common ground with half-truths and sensationalism. Control the narrative by misconstruing the intent of the information. Let’s look at this, the article, as you said it is nothing. It’s a boring and for the most part innocent story. Well as you can tell by the comments: Most didn’t read it, didn’t care to read it, and most of the commenters came here to fight for their side of the political spectrum. By knowing most won’t read it, he can write nearly anything he wants and cherry-pick any part and cause fight for it. Because he controls the narrative it is more often than not unchallenged. 

Funnily, this guy says we should avoid a world like 1984, when in fact his post screams and hollers with the same sounds of Big Brother. It’s hypocritical, but people like him don’t care. Or if they do they try to prove they aren’t bias. Or when they fail they redirect. 

 

The OP is misleading and purposefully causing and sowing discord. I spent a fair share of my time watching these types. He’s nothing new or special. It’s a norm, left or right. They all do this shit, Honestly this needs to be a locked thread.

"He does it to stroke the fears of the scared, anger the marginalized, and divide the common ground with half-truths and sensationalism. "

you sound pretty scared and angry with regards to him

and this entire post has the aim of dividing you and him while containing no content relevant to the op

how hypocritical of you

 

" Because he controls the narrative it is more often than not unchallenged. "

i'd like you to summarise for me what narrative he has derived from the article... that should be interesting

 

"The OP is misleading and purposefully causing and sowing discord. "

how? all he did was post an article that you appear to agree with...



TheBird said:
I really hate these articles, she's attacking the yoga culture for lack of diversity, without putting any thought into the idea that maybe she lives in an area with a whole lot of white people, or black people could care less about yoga.

Well:

a) She is largely talking about the messaging, not just the membership

b) She is talking about her own state of feeling excluded

c) The author talks about how she is seeing more african-americans in her own classes, which she hypothesizes is due to an environment which feels less exclusive

 

So, this point is largely addressed by the actual article.



sundin13 said:
o_O.Q said:

"Unless you wish to assert that messaging "spin classes" as predominantly white is due to logic"

quick question... are the populations of white people and black people the same in the us?

no? so if that's not the case would you expect 50/50 representation in any area? wouldn't that be a stupid expectation?

furthermore there's the difference in economics between both populations, white people having more money to spend on leisure, for example

and yes this obviously ties into past racism and oppression but that's not what this is about - the argument is about current factors

 

"I mean, the fact that marketing exists with fit people doesn't really prove your point."

well it pretty much does when you are arguing incorrectly that they have to advertise in a particular way that is the opposite of what they have always done(99% of the time) and fitness programs being more popular now than ever

 

" While gyms make money, the "gym" industry is notorious for being unable to keep customers and while there are a lot of reasons for that"

fitness programs whether it be gyms or otherwise are more popular now than they ever have been

 

"people being uncomfortable being "unfit" in a gym is one of them"

insecurity because of lack of proficiency in any area affects people across all criteria and is not a problem that can ever be done away with

 

"This article is calling out a feeling of exclusion within a specific industry. Showing examples of that industry doing a poor job at including a certain demographic doesn't really prove any point."

my point is that your framing of standard advertising procedure as bad or ineffective because its exclusionary is silly

advertising as i said before is about two states - the state of the person initially before buying a product and the state of the person after buying the product

the goal has always been to show the end result and as a result influence the person to buy into the product

a consequence of that is to present the initial condition as being unsatisfactory or excluding it entirely, which obviously results in exclusion

why do people work out? to be fitter and often to be more attractive so images are presented of what can be done by buying into a fitness program

why do people buy hair loss products? to not be bald so images are presented showing men or women with full heads of hair

why do people buy one type of phone over another because that phone is presented as having unique features not found anywhere else

and you can go right through advertising and see the same pattern and its there for an obvious reason

 

"I know that I don't think I'd ever do a yoga class because they are typically all women, and I would feel super weird being the only guy doing yoga in a class of women. That says nothing about me hating women, but instead it says that I don't feel welcome in those groups because I am not part of the in-group of those classes."

63% of the us population is white

and 13% is black

how would you deal with that?

"my point is that your framing of standard advertising procedure as bad or ineffective because its exclusionary is silly"

Except the issue here is that I am doing neither. I am not saying it is bad, I am saying that more could be done to make certain demographics feel included in certain activities, and I am not saying that it is ineffective, but instead that it could be more effective with certain subpopulations if it changed the messaging.

There is no need to be this reductionist here. 

To speak about the marketing strategies you are discussing, there is a difference between marketing an ideal and marketing to an ideal. I mean, look at the balding products you spoke of. Pretty much every hair loss commercial I have ever seen has shown tons of people with terrible hair before showing that they achieved the ideal. This is to express the fact that these products are not targeted to individuals who are the ideal, but instead that the product is for people seeking that ideal. Without showing individuals who are not ideal, it is easy to create the messaging that this product is for people who are already at that ideal. Also, it is worth noting that products and memberships are fairly different when it comes to the feeling of exclusion, but I will move on from that for now.

As far as demographics go, if 63% of the population is white, than that means 37% is of some minority group, and remember we aren't just talking about diversity of race, but diversity of body type and diversity of age (and diversity and inclusion does not require a 50/50 split). But country demographics mean little when it comes to "messaging" here. You would have no trouble finding a minority to have some pictures taken of them. Remember that the assertion here is that individuals are not entering courses because they do not feel welcome due to the messaging. This results in demographics skewed beyond overall country demographics. In the example the article gives for membership, they spoke about a teaching class of 54 women. One (the author) was black. If true country demographics were present within this class, you would have about 7 black individuals here, so clearly that isn't a good proxy for the discussion we are having.

" but instead that it could be more effective with certain subpopulations if it changed the messaging."

based on what?

what data do you have to demonstrate that this would be the case?

advertising companies in case you didn't know it act based on data themselves and you are calling their methods ineffective with regards to their target group in this context 

 

"there is a difference between marketing an ideal and marketing to an ideal."

true but irrelevant, advertising always tries to push the idea that their product is the closest to ideal and that applies across all intended audiances

 

"Pretty much every hair loss commercial I have ever seen has shown tons of people with terrible hair before showing that they achieved the ideal."

the primary focus is on people with gorgeous hair... because that is the objective

they simultaneously denigrate people who are balding... if we applied that to this situation and unfit people were denigrated don't you think that the author would be even more upset?

 

"As far as demographics go, if 63% of the population is white, than that means 37% is of some minority group"

13% are black as i stated

 

"Remember that the assertion here is that individuals are not entering courses because they do not feel welcome due to the messaging. This results in demographics skewed beyond overall country demographics."

this is an unfounded assertion, it is her opinion that this is the case there could be other reasons such as the demographics of her area

 

" If true country demographics were present within this class, you would have about 7 black individuals here, so clearly that isn't a good proxy for the discussion we are having."

because the demographics of the country are uniform everywhere right?

and there aren't other factors to consider such as interest or disposable income

rap is predominantly black does that mean that we need to force more whites into rap for equity?



o_O.Q said:
StarOcean said:

Look beyond the article and look at the user. That’s when you find intent. The user, check his history. What does it say about him? More than that, look at his threads. Before this thread it was: Do you consume soy?, How video games are fueling the far-right, Britain’s ‘Worst Ever’ child grooming scandal, NK talks about abandoning it’s Nuclear Weapons, Italian Election Results, US to overtake Russia/Saudi as top Oil Producer, etc etc: On top of gems such as “New World Order”. 

He does it to stroke the fears of the scared, anger the marginalized, and divide the common ground with half-truths and sensationalism. Control the narrative by misconstruing the intent of the information. Let’s look at this, the article, as you said it is nothing. It’s a boring and for the most part innocent story. Well as you can tell by the comments: Most didn’t read it, didn’t care to read it, and most of the commenters came here to fight for their side of the political spectrum. By knowing most won’t read it, he can write nearly anything he wants and cherry-pick any part and cause fight for it. Because he controls the narrative it is more often than not unchallenged. 

Funnily, this guy says we should avoid a world like 1984, when in fact his post screams and hollers with the same sounds of Big Brother. It’s hypocritical, but people like him don’t care. Or if they do they try to prove they aren’t bias. Or when they fail they redirect. 

 

The OP is misleading and purposefully causing and sowing discord. I spent a fair share of my time watching these types. He’s nothing new or special. It’s a norm, left or right. They all do this shit, Honestly this needs to be a locked thread.

"He does it to stroke the fears of the scared, anger the marginalized, and divide the common ground with half-truths and sensationalism. "

you sound pretty scared and angry with regards to him

and this entire post has the aim of dividing you and him while containing no content relevant to the op

how hypocritical of you

 

" Because he controls the narrative it is more often than not unchallenged. "

i'd like you to summarise for me what narrative he has derived from the article... that should be interesting

 

"The OP is misleading and purposefully causing and sowing discord. "

how? all he did was post an article that you appear to agree with...

You’re always so eager to be contrarian. But I won’t reciprocated. You’ll need to find someone else to masturbate to



Around the Network
StarOcean said:
o_O.Q said:

"He does it to stroke the fears of the scared, anger the marginalized, and divide the common ground with half-truths and sensationalism. "

you sound pretty scared and angry with regards to him

and this entire post has the aim of dividing you and him while containing no content relevant to the op

how hypocritical of you

 

" Because he controls the narrative it is more often than not unchallenged. "

i'd like you to summarise for me what narrative he has derived from the article... that should be interesting

 

"The OP is misleading and purposefully causing and sowing discord. "

how? all he did was post an article that you appear to agree with...

You’re always so eager to be contrarian. But I won’t reciprocated. You’ll need to find someone else to masturbate to

no you can't reciprocate because you don't have a rational argument and your behavior is in alignment with the accusations you have leveled against him

all you've done is make up a bunch of unfounded claims against him as you do often btw, i've asked you to back your assertions in other threads about other users and surprise surprise you always struggle

maybe relax a little and not be so quick to "divide the common ground with half-truths and sensationalism."



o_O.Q said:
StarOcean said:

You’re always so eager to be contrarian. But I won’t reciprocated. You’ll need to find someone else to masturbate to

no you can't reciprocate because you don't have a rational argument and your behavior is in alignment with the accusations you have leveled against him

all you've done is make up a bunch of unfounded claims against him as you do often btw, i've asked you to back your assertions in other threads about other users and surprise surprise you always struggle

maybe relax a little and not be so quick to "divide the common ground with half-truths and sensationalism."

Keep tryin’, baby boy. Come on. You’ll come up with a good argument eventually.



o_O.Q said:
sundin13 said:

"my point is that your framing of standard advertising procedure as bad or ineffective because its exclusionary is silly"

Except the issue here is that I am doing neither. I am not saying it is bad, I am saying that more could be done to make certain demographics feel included in certain activities, and I am not saying that it is ineffective, but instead that it could be more effective with certain subpopulations if it changed the messaging.

There is no need to be this reductionist here. 

To speak about the marketing strategies you are discussing, there is a difference between marketing an ideal and marketing to an ideal. I mean, look at the balding products you spoke of. Pretty much every hair loss commercial I have ever seen has shown tons of people with terrible hair before showing that they achieved the ideal. This is to express the fact that these products are not targeted to individuals who are the ideal, but instead that the product is for people seeking that ideal. Without showing individuals who are not ideal, it is easy to create the messaging that this product is for people who are already at that ideal. Also, it is worth noting that products and memberships are fairly different when it comes to the feeling of exclusion, but I will move on from that for now.

As far as demographics go, if 63% of the population is white, than that means 37% is of some minority group, and remember we aren't just talking about diversity of race, but diversity of body type and diversity of age (and diversity and inclusion does not require a 50/50 split). But country demographics mean little when it comes to "messaging" here. You would have no trouble finding a minority to have some pictures taken of them. Remember that the assertion here is that individuals are not entering courses because they do not feel welcome due to the messaging. This results in demographics skewed beyond overall country demographics. In the example the article gives for membership, they spoke about a teaching class of 54 women. One (the author) was black. If true country demographics were present within this class, you would have about 7 black individuals here, so clearly that isn't a good proxy for the discussion we are having.

" but instead that it could be more effective with certain subpopulations if it changed the messaging."

based on what?

what data do you have to demonstrate that this would be the case?

advertising companies in case you didn't know it act based on data themselves and you are calling their methods ineffective with regards to their target group in this context 

 

"there is a difference between marketing an ideal and marketing to an ideal."

true but irrelevant, advertising always tries to push the idea that their product is the closest to ideal and that applies across all intended audiances

 

"Pretty much every hair loss commercial I have ever seen has shown tons of people with terrible hair before showing that they achieved the ideal."

the primary focus is on people with gorgeous hair... because that is the objective

they simultaneously denigrate people who are balding... if we applied that to this situation and unfit people were denigrated don't you think that the author would be even more upset?

 

"As far as demographics go, if 63% of the population is white, than that means 37% is of some minority group"

13% are black as i stated

 

"Remember that the assertion here is that individuals are not entering courses because they do not feel welcome due to the messaging. This results in demographics skewed beyond overall country demographics."

this is an unfounded assertion, it is her opinion that this is the case there could be other reasons such as the demographics of her area

 

" If true country demographics were present within this class, you would have about 7 black individuals here, so clearly that isn't a good proxy for the discussion we are having."

because the demographics of the country are uniform everywhere right?

and there aren't other factors to consider such as interest or disposable income

rap is predominantly black does that mean that we need to force more whites into rap for equity?

a) Do you honestly need me to present sources to back up the claim that advertising to a group makes a product more appealing to that group? That is like, marketing 101.

b) The author also presents evidence that in her classes with different messaging, she attracts more african-american individuals, which implies that the lack of black people isn't solely due to demographics, but instead due to messaging.

c) Rap is not a membership club. Poor equivalency.



sundin13 said:
o_O.Q said:

" but instead that it could be more effective with certain subpopulations if it changed the messaging."

based on what?

what data do you have to demonstrate that this would be the case?

advertising companies in case you didn't know it act based on data themselves and you are calling their methods ineffective with regards to their target group in this context 

 

"there is a difference between marketing an ideal and marketing to an ideal."

true but irrelevant, advertising always tries to push the idea that their product is the closest to ideal and that applies across all intended audiances

 

"Pretty much every hair loss commercial I have ever seen has shown tons of people with terrible hair before showing that they achieved the ideal."

the primary focus is on people with gorgeous hair... because that is the objective

they simultaneously denigrate people who are balding... if we applied that to this situation and unfit people were denigrated don't you think that the author would be even more upset?

 

"As far as demographics go, if 63% of the population is white, than that means 37% is of some minority group"

13% are black as i stated

 

"Remember that the assertion here is that individuals are not entering courses because they do not feel welcome due to the messaging. This results in demographics skewed beyond overall country demographics."

this is an unfounded assertion, it is her opinion that this is the case there could be other reasons such as the demographics of her area

 

" If true country demographics were present within this class, you would have about 7 black individuals here, so clearly that isn't a good proxy for the discussion we are having."

because the demographics of the country are uniform everywhere right?

and there aren't other factors to consider such as interest or disposable income

rap is predominantly black does that mean that we need to force more whites into rap for equity?

a) Do you honestly need me to present sources to back up the claim that advertising to a group makes a product more appealing to that group? That is like, marketing 101.

b) The author also presents evidence that in her classes with different messaging, she attracts more african-american individuals, which implies that the lack of black people isn't solely due to demographics, but instead due to messaging.

c) Rap is not a membership club. Poor equivalency.

"Do you honestly need me to present sources to back up the claim that advertising to a group makes a product more appealing to that group?"

advertising what? their state before the product or after the product?

you are arguing for their state before the product

me and just about every ad agency ever argue for after the product

 

"The author also presents evidence that in her classes with different messaging, she attracts more african-american individuals, which implies that the lack of black people isn't solely due to demographics, but instead due to messaging."

this is one situation where this happened, you can't use one situation where there may be dozens of unacknowledged variables and use that to draw a conclusion about the whole country

 

"Rap is not a membership club. Poor equivalency."

why?

rap is a collective, the article is about a collective... why is it a poor equivalency?

i could just as easily argue that since the rap community is mostly black that this repels white people from becoming more involved

that's the argument isn't it? so how do we, therefore, give white people more representation in the rap community?



John2290 said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, ideally the TC would explain themselves in the OP.

Ideally. It's not against the rules though? Strictly? 

Perhaps a spam rule would be in violation here but that's for the mods to decide. Either way, I think Numberwang should be allowed to post first and then speak later in the comments of the thread. I can't see this as being against the rules unless he repeatedly posts articles without ever interacting or participating in the discussions he creates. Even now, you bring this up, we are off topic and in violation of rules. 

The only reason Numberwang didn't contribute to the OP is because if people got enough of a sense of his viewpoints, they would start calling him out for how bad his contributions to the site are/his threads are. Numberwang not contributing to his thread in the first place, has to do with the fact that he wants to create an environment where he can post something that fits his agenda, and then makes it seem natural by not saying anything and letting the negative comments roll in. If Numberwang actually spoke out more, people would probably see WHY he's making threads like this and react accordingly, instead he seems inoffensive because he isn't writing shit.

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 25 March 2018