Think about some things wise people told:
You are what you eat.
You are what you wear.
You are what you fashion.
and so on…
And if someone feels good if looking like fool, I don’t care. But if it becomes as a company’s face I’m forced to watch, ignoring what I want to see, then something went terribly wrong.
And since I am the user of product you are trying to sell me every year again and again and I accept this business, then it should be normal that you and your team not only censoring us, but try to take in account something.
Is this halfshaved ugly advert for those who claim to crossgrade from Pro Tools? Do you really think they will make a decission after this ugly advert?
I agree with @ANeeman that in the Cubase 10 advertising video, the girl’s haircut is neither appealing nor persuasive. But what’s truly disturbing is the implied message that we can ignore our biology. Granted, not everyone perceives this implied message in the video. And perhaps Steinberg did not mean to communicate it. But to me, the video reflects a political viewpoint that I disagree with, and this made me feel reluctant to buy the product.
To answer some of the comments in this thread, I think adults have a right to make informed choices about how to use their bodies, and children have a right to be told the scientific facts of biology, free from any Cultural Marxist ideological bias. Fortunately, the rights of children in this regard have been championed by University of Toronto psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson. Contrary to one comment in this thread, Peterson has not been proven wrong. But this discussion is about Steinberg’s advertising, not about Jordan Peterson.
That said, surely we can all agree that Steinberg’s advertising should never reflect any political viewpoint or ideology. I also think most Steinberg customers would prefer advertising that highlights the practical features and benefits of Steinberg products, in detail, rather than close-up views of fashion models’ faces and haircuts. Furthermore, I believe that most Cubase users value the freedom of speech we all enjoy. I’m very pleased that Steinberg has supported that by restoring my previously censored original post, and allowing this discussion to take place.
I am in denial about this horse dying, so I shall beat it a little more.
The ad in question isn’t a political statement. It’s a marketing attempt to capture the demographic that esteems that look. Photon’s and ANeeman’s reaction to it here reflects their personal taste and cultural mores.
One’s opinion doesn’t have to be factual to merit publication. Personally, I find the view in the OP odious, and that’s my opinion.
For those who might rightfully wonder what “cultural Marxism” is and haven’t suffered through Peterson’s inane drivel yet can find some interesting points on it here:
Black musicians are among my all-time favorites, including Earth Wind & Fire, Kool and the Gang, Oscar Peterson, Miles Davis, and Nat King Cole. I also like Chick Corea, Tito Puente, and Carlos Santana, who are Hispanic. Noriko Ogawa and Midori Goto are outstanding East Asian classical musicians. Bill Evans, Phil Collins, and Murray Perahia are white. And I like them all.
If Steinberg must show people in its advertising, I would rather see a mix of races. But as I wrote in my previous post, I think “most Steinberg customers would prefer advertising that highlights the practical features and benefits of Steinberg products, in detail, rather than close-up views of fashion models’ faces and haircuts.”
Regarding this thread, it is unfortunate that some people have implied that I am an anti-gay racist. I am not. Evidently, those people need to carefully re-read my original post. And before commenting further, they should educate themselves about the ongoing conspiracy against biological science, now being perpetrated by Cultural Marxist postmodernist ideologues. Google the phrase “new sokal hoax”, for example. Unfortunately, the neo-Marxist ideological virus is no longer confined to academia; it is now physically and mentally victimizing children. So whose side are you on?
Furthermore, before you consider posting another personally disparaging remark, remember that only when one has lost a debate will the temptation arise to smear one’s opponent personally – or censor him.
Edit: If you want to read some uncensored, politically incorrect articles about this controversy, visit this site: https://quillette.com
And you probably have black friends too. Do you have friends with shaved heads?
Since it escaped you; the question was rhetorical. I knew it was too much to hope for but the point was that it too would be a political message about inclusiveness and diversity.
Trust me, some of us have been through the horse-crap you’re peddling before. It’s stupid nonsense. That’s all it is. If you quit drinking Peterson’s cool-aid you’d maybe, just maybe, comprehend that.
Bla bla bla. Your idiotic points have been addressed. Too bad you don’t like it.
The only good thing about this is that your kind is losing this stupid pretend battle of yours. There are no “Cultural Marxist postmodernist ideologues” running around revolutionizing society. All it is are some ridiculous highly bigoted men afraid of losing their position in society. That’s all it is.
But like I said, you’re losing this battle and it can’t happen soon enough.
Yeah, I don’t think so. I’m going to assume it is no better than what you have posted.
I did not find who she was when I tried- Though I figured she must be part of the sheWrites song writing camp, so thank you for that.
And yeah, she’s an accomplished composer/producer who uses Cubase, and that’s why she’s featured. This makes my previous post obsolete too, so I deleted it.
she’s an accomplished composer/producer who uses Cubase, and that’s why she’s featured.
@Steve, of course, there are many accomplished composers and producers who would have been overjoyed to be featured in that video. So why was she chosen over the others? Because of her sex and her haircut? Was this an optimal marketing strategy? If not, then why did Steinberg do it?
I’m not qualified to comment on your two articles, but they don’t address my concerns anyway. I do realize that perhaps 1 in 200 people suffer from sexual identity confusion, known as gender dysphoria. Whether their dysphoria stems from some prenatal hormonal imbalance or some psychological imbalance, I don’t know, but I empathize with them. Once they reach adulthood, they have a right to undergo sex-change surgery, in my opinion.
However, we should not teach all primary school children that they can be a boy or a girl, depending on how they feel on any given day. That is scientifically wrong. Women can bear children, whereas men cannot. Merely feeling female cannot change a man into a woman. Even genital surgery cannot change a man’s chromosomes, or allow him to bear children. So we should just tell children the facts of life, counsel those who need help, and allow the rest to develop naturally, without interference. Moreover, we should not encourage pre-teens to take opposite-sex hormones, since gender dysphoria at that age tends to disappear over time. Here is a relevant quote:
“Redefining what it means to be a man or woman redefines what it means to be gay. Depending on how they identify, people with male bodies who prefer female sexual partners may regard themselves as either heterosexual men or lesbian women. It also affects women’s political activism, since defining womanhood as based on a feeling rather than anatomy is incompatible with the feminist position that women are oppressed because they are physically weaker than men and bear the entire burden of reproduction. And it affects education: Many schools now tell children that being a boy or girl is not a matter of what it says on their birth certificates, but what they feel like. Since that is a circular definition, lessons quickly degenerate into endorsing sex-stereotypes: If you like trains and trucks, maybe you’re a boy. If you like pink chiffon, a girl. … Though puberty blockers are supposed to buy time, in fact they start a child down a path to irreversible changes. Emerging data suggests that they start a cascade of intervention, with almost every child [who is] given them proceeding to cross-sex hormones. … Those who missed puberty in their own sex will probably be sterile—indeed, sexually functionless.”
