6 marketing terms that you don’t think (enough) about
Let me preface this by explaining that I am not debating these items. I am only debating that using these terms/phrases often associated might not make sense to use or aren’t actually for the greater good. Not what they might encapsulate.
Space Age technology - This means that whatever the product is, it was invented or manufactured after 1957 basically. No really. It doesn’t mean cutting edge stuff from the future as is often implied. You could even make a strong case that the Space Age started in 1942 but that is another debate. It is a terrible marketing term which somehow still has legs. Perspective: Sliced bread is just barely out of the loop in being Space Age technology. No really.
Environmentally Friendly - Stop using this term to describe industrially manufactured objects that increase consumption and waste. Continuing to misuse terms like this create smugness and the idea that a person or thing is reversing damage simply by using them. It relates somewhat to the phrase “The lesser of two evils is still evil.” I’m not sure on what “Does less damage than a Hummer does” should be called but having the idea that you are doing something good, simply because it isn’t as bad as something else isn’t the smartest thing. Perspective: On a + and - scale for impact, walking is about as close to neutral as you can get here. In other words, it isn’t even technically environmentally friendly. It is near 0.
Equal rights is not the same as black rights, white rights, gay rights or womens rights. I’m going to lose a few of you here that might not take the time to think about this. Perspective: I have witnessed people protest to have their ethnicity (not race) added to a census form because they wanted equality. If you wanted equality, it seems like protesting to have “race” removed altogether from a census form would be the best bet. Whoa Workman! You just said something which makes an insane amount of sense which nobody talks about. People that fight for equality often aren’t looking for it but completely have the belief that they are. They are looking to balance out historical inequality. Refusing to acknowledge things which are out of our control as human beings such as sex, race, and sexuality does far more to create equality. I understand that it is not a simple process and historically there has been huge inequality for reasons like these. The goal is convergence and not divergence. If you could look forward 50 years and people were still fighting for things like gay rights or womens rights, it would be pretty clear that we aren’t doing the right things wouldn’t it? Everybody needs to be aware of what the long term goals should be here. Human rights. Asking “Do you support womens rights?” is about the most one-sided question I have ever heard. Have you ever heard anyone say “No?” So, in that context, the term is used for marketing and not for a greater idea. Why even ask it when it makes more sense to explain what women face which isn’t equal? Womens equality is the goal and not separate rights for Women. (Note: I am not talking about cultural things here. Things like the TV channel BET are actually more cultural than racial which is also another debate.)
Pro-Life/ Pro-Choice - First let me say clearly that these two things do not directly oppose each other. They are not left vs. right terms. You lose a lot of energy in debate simply by not being aware that you are not debating a directly opposing idea. In context, most people are both Pro-life and Pro-choice. Perspective: Is there any person reading this that considers it a “Woman’s choice” to terminate a pregnancy at 8 months and 3 weeks? What if a fertility clinic burned down and 1000 fertilized eggs were lost. Would that be the same as if 1000 people died in the same fire? While I used drastic examples, I am simply trying to make the point that there is no direct answer and there cannot nor will not ever be one. We work to have the best policies in place for the largest amount of people and the greater good. These are marketing terms created to allow debate in which there cannot be a winner. It is not possible. Using terms which are easier to swallow in an ethical debate is unethical in itself. Understand?
Does this make sense to you? When psychics, mediums, and the like use terms such as “Does this sound right?” or “Does this make sense?” what they are doing is casting focus. It is manipulation. I say marketing because without these terms, the belief that it is real and accuracy of the predictions bottom out fast. They make someone look better than they are when they should actually be making them look worse. Using these terms is a manipulative way of asking the victim to simply speculate on ideas for you. When you hear these terms, imagine them as “I have no idea. Why don’t you tell me” and then get away. Stop believing and supporting this nonsense and it will go away. Perspective: If you could read someones mind, why would you even ask them if it made sense?
Conservative/Liberal - Nothing pains me more than seeing “Very Conservative” or “Very Liberal” as someones political stance. It isn’t a team. There isn’t even a side. Most people who claim to be “Very Liberal” are often Ultra Conservative concerning crime and especially concerning big business. Labeling yourself with a title makes you more likely to agree with the ideas within it before you even study them. It does not promote thought. You simply create a bias. You owe it to yourself and others to have no stance on anything until you have weighed things as good as you can from multiple viewpoints. Perspective: When tea party people get together and talk about tea party things it isn’t debate. It is often rabble rousing. Meeting with people who have the exact same ideas strengthens the feeling that your idea is the right one without actually having it subjected to any scutiny. The best idea would be to meet with someone that has an opposing view which increases knowledge and provides insight and understanding. Treating political ideas like they are the Carolina Panthers or the Buffalo Bills is silly. There are no sides and you don’t have to pick a team. It is also similar because both are complete shit to be fans of.
In closing: If you are for some reason offended, I am sorry. My goal is to provoke thought. Our brains naturally want to grab a keyword or pit things against each other. We attempt to simplify and group things which need to be studied and should be complex to understand because they are. Simply being aware of that helps. One of the greatest things about being human is that we can earn an opinion by virtue via education and thought. Putting energy into this can be rewarding. Taking a walk in the woods will give you far more insight about them compared to flying past them in an airplane.
