Banned SuperBowl Ad

[Watch this first]

So i'd like to start this off by saying that i came across this in my facebook feed. I rarely use facebook but this caught my eye and i decided to watch it. I wasn't particularly angry with the message of the video but more of the response this guy was getting. All of the comments were supporting the guy in the video and it didn't have any negative comments at all.

I want to be clear that i don't consider myself a democrat but I do have liberal leaning beliefs.

The first thing i want to talk about this article and video is how bias the post itself was. Obviously coming from the "Guns For Liberties" site i expect them to have a pro-gun agenda but this was fucking outrageous

Aside from the generalization that all liberals think alike, how does anyone come to the conclusion that it is the liberals at work to promote gun control in Superbowl commercials. I don't have a strong opinion on gun control myself and I don't pretend to know what is better for the country but I do know damn well that the NFL weren't in the wrong for banning the commercial.

For one the NFL is a private corporation and anything they want to do with their media broadcasting is their prerogative (within legal boundries) and it is insane to think that any random pro-gun activist should get pissy over them deciding not to aire a certain comercial (because the word ban was just used to make it seem like a tyranical act). If the NFL doesn't use this commercial it is idiocy to jump to the conclusion that it was to not piss off the liberals. All of the people who wrote the trash post and all of the people who commented on the facebook post I found this on completely disregarded the fact that the NFL may have done this for purely economical reasons. Maybe they didn't want to have a debby downer commercial that would kill the vibe of the parties taking place or maybe they just decided that other commercials would be more suitable. Maybe you could even be optimistic and think that they did this to not encourage people who may be under the influence to play with guns that may be in their house. I don't even understand why some conservatives are getting mad about this anyway... when i think about someone trying to regulate what a private corporation can do with their own property I think about them getting pissed off not being the ones asking for it.

Either way I don't dislike the guy who made the video I just think he made a few points that didn't lead anywhere.

So what do you guys think? Was the NFL in the wrong for not airing this commercial?

 

What, I don't understand..

 

Not hard...
Nfl banned a serious commercial about guns
People complained
Ilovegold thinks people bitch and complain and they werent really in the right
Do you side with complainers or nfl

I agree with a serious commercial not being appropiate for some fun loving football

 

Thanks for the summary, very much tl:dr, but read anyway.

First of all, This is like watching a commercial for getting "Obamacare" for a die hard republican, goes against their views. So understand that something they care about wasn't shown because of uncertain reasons but an obvious one is that it goes against what others thinks. It's not because it would kill the vibe because last year one of the most vied commercials was a Budweiser commercial with serious music, black and grey scale vision, and a sad story (they do reunite at the end but it's still an overall vibe).

If someone was willing to pay for the ridiculous price for airtime during it then why wouldn't you allow it? There wasn't any guns in the actual commercial and it was a family setting (which a lot of superbowl watchers are family gathered together). It's not "Republicans" getting all pissy about it. The demarcates would have done the same shit if they denied a "obamacare" ad. It's all political gains for a party. That being said Im neither republican or democrate because i refuse to be a sheep in a wolves game.

Can they air what they want? YES
Does it mean what they choose to air is always right? NO
But am I mad they didn't air it because the NFL's views are different? Not Really.

It's like watching the news, FOX to watch all democrat failures or CNN to watch all republican failures. No need to get your panties in a bunch over another group of people getting mad. Just remember it's all political gains.

 

Whatever you said about the sad budweiser commercial i can't make a statement as i have not seen it. From what you said it sounded like a joke commercial that in the end was still full of joy. As for the "going against their views" points you were making it isn't like watching an obamacare commercial because it wasn't being seen at all. All they did was choose to not put it on tv.

It isn't all about the person who pays for the ad, it is also what the channel thinks is going to be successful. Just because there aren't guns doesn't mean that the topic of the commercial isn't gun promotion. And you can't assume that democrats would do anything to a similar ad. You're also perpetuating the stereotypes that democrats all get mad at one thing and republicans another. Even if many liberals did get offended by the NFL rejecting an obamacare commercial that is completely irrelevant to the problem we have here.

Can they air what they want? of course
Does it mean what they choose to air is always right? Absolutely. To say that you or anyone else knows objectively what is better to air is insane. The NFL isn't some small inexperienced corperation, the majority of what they do (and especially with the superbowl) is well thought out.
But am I mad they didn't air it because the NFL's views are different? Okay first of all you're making the assumption that the NFL did this from a political standpoint. I've already explained why that was retarded. But as for the am i mad part, how the fuck could i be?

And for your last statement you're completely wrong. This is an obviously conservative site and i'm not going to CNN to see their faults.

So to recap, stop bringing liberals into this because it is irrelevant what they think in this situation. It shouldn't offend anyone because it wasn't even supposed to be talked about. Just because the NFL "censored" them doesn't mean that that they made the decision based on political bias.

 

Joke wasn't full of joy, it was a simply reuniting after a parade that lasted about 3 seconds out of a roughly 1:30 commercial.

And exactly, I'm saying the masses of democrats would be made if a commercial for obamacare would have been denied, so you can't hate the fact that when the opposing side is upset about something they care deeply about (ex. rep with guns and demo with healthcare). It makes Zero (0 or 0.00) sense.

As for commercials making money and entertaining people, What in the fuck does Go Daddy even do? I thought it was a porn site until I just googled it and I've seen like 3 different superbowl commercials about it. How is that successful? And I'm using an example to try and show you a bigger picture which you are not getting. The issue is your mad about republicans getting mad at dismissing an ad in there political favor. I tried to show you using a major topic relevant to the opposite party that the roles would switch if it happened on the flip side. And instead of you being mad at republicans it would be at the NFL, just as the republicans are now.

So when young children are watching these superbowl ads with their parents and they see the soft porn from Go Daddy ads that's fine, but a man talking about protecting his family isn't? Too say there right in airing what they feel suitable for the audience is right is actually wrong. That's like a news channel not broadcasting a very important event because it makes someone look bad. America has many freedoms and one of those is to bare arms along with what the companies want to air on there events. But just because you have this freedom doesn't mean every decision you make is right because it's yours.

And im not making the assumption that they did it for that reason, I said I don't know in the last post, but the way the it can look for republicans is all it takes. Your mad at the people who didn't support this and where angry for not airing it in the comments of that vid.

And what you don't understand is they didn't say it wasn't for political reasons. So no one is sure on the real reason. Only speculations, so if you think my way of thinking is "retarded" then your is equally "retarded" because both our standpoints are not verified.

 

Without trying to go off-topic too much, this reminds me of a situation I was in at my workplace. I was sponsoring "help for heroes" that is a charity that supports injured soldiers and alike. I asked my company for a contribution. They declined to sponsor me as it could affect their international relationships with foreign companies.

This was a genuine response; they sponsor all sorts of people that are pushing themselves for charity. So my decline was not just a weak excuse. I find it utterly disgusting that supporting a person who has only followed orders by our country, that it would be deemed "offensive" to contribute to their welfare.

Trying to look at it from both sides is difficult, and I can see a resemblance in this situation that you've arisen. Companies refusing to contribute to "touchy" areas.

I think they just prefer not to get the negativity. However, I have to say that I agree completely with the guy in the video.

 

Having the commercial aired would've been more controversial than taking it off. Idk why a commercial like that would be controversial anyway.... you either agree or don't. I don't see how saying a gun being the best way to protect your family is offensive in any way.

 

It's considered offensive because you intend to cause harm by protecting your family from an intruder. Yes, it could be used as a stand off tool. However, ultimately it could escalate to a death of a person. Which in this day and age is considered inhumane.

Not saying I agree, but that's the point. I think.

 

Death is a certain fate for all of us. If you act stupid (like breaking into somebody's house), your fate comes sooner than others. I don't agree with the conservative outrage over the commercial... but the liberal viewpoint on firearms in general is a retarded one.

 

I'm not saying you do think this, but if you think protecting yourself with a weapon from someone breaking into your house who might be willing to kill you for your material items is offensive, then your a dumbass pussy that deserves to be put in a situation like that.

That's basically what I was trying to get at, I don't agree with the controversy but I can't understand how can be mad at others for thinking the way they do. At the end of the day it's either they found better commercials to air, or they took a political standpoint on it. Personally since they decided not to air it and people took notice and they haven't said it wasn't politically motivated, makes me think it was. But can't be certain though.

 

Not in them words, but I'd prefer not to be outgunned by an intruder who entered my home.

For instance, at my works ( again ) we have radioactive isotopes. So it's a legal requirement for us to secure them away properly because we have to be concerned for an intruder's welfare.

Personally, if they entered our radiation cupboard and found their life span shorted. I'd look at it as a karma fuck you point of view.

Home defense in my opinion should be treated as a life or death situation; therefore, lethal force should be accepted.

 

I agree 100% with the guy in the video, they shouldn't have banned that commercial. Obama probably pressed gun control on Goodell... scumbag

 

The fuck are you on? Why would Obama do something that would effectively end his presidency if he was found out? And he would be found out. It's completely stupid to blame Obama and there is no base to do so.