site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   3314 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for March 22, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trademarks should be used to compensate for the cost of innovation. The reason Stanley profited so much from their product is that they succeeded in manipulating female buying preferences by associating it with high status. That’s it. It’s a grotesque waste of resources and predicated on manipulating the public imagination. So in the case of stupid cups and other status items, there should be no trademarks (maybe a small number on the bottom of items to guarantee quality with a trusted producer only).

It’s funny that this is where the buck stops with capitalists. No no no, you can’t regulate like this, you need to regulate like that! Changing how we regulate is unthinkable!

Am I understanding you to be arguing that female status games should be illegal?

Trademarks are valuable: brands let you know how much you can trust the product. Brands let companies convey to you more quickly what the quality of the product will be. If you get rid of them, then it becomes way harder for the consumer to know whether the product is a cheap chinese knockoff or something that actually will work well and last a while.

The evolution of humanity requires increasingly prosocial status games. For women, the status game can be intelligence (see the high STEM rate among Iranian and Saudi women), inner beauty (acts of compassion in a community, singing, poetry, see the ancient world), external beautification (beautiful prosocial religious or quasi-religious art), and fidelity (to some social principle, like anti-consumerism).

The status games we have concocted for women today are bad. Placing poison on their face, wasting their money under false allusions, social media, music festivals, tRaViLiNg… all bullshit. Because for some reason we let for-profit corporations infect the minds of the impressionable.

Bullshit male status games should also be illegal, of course.

Fair enough that those are costly socially, often for not much benefit, and not great for the soul.

I don't think they can be chalked up to "for-profit corporations" though. It's usually just from the rot within us.

Trademarks should be used to compensate for the cost of innovation.

That's not what trademarks are for. Trademarks are for authenticating products as coming from one manufacturer and not another.

The reason Stanley profited so much from their product is that they succeeded in manipulating female buying preferences by associating it with high status.

As far as I can tell this is false.

https://www.retaildive.com/news/stanley-quencher-tumblers-viral-success/699416/

They were not putting money into marketing or selling the product and the popularity seems to have been driven by a group of Mormon influencers who placed a bulk order for ten thousand mugs and resold them to their followers. They sold out of them in short order and only then did Stanley get in on the action.

Trademarks are for authenticating products

That’s not what trademarks are for in practice. They are for signaling status. Any visible trademarked logo you see is for status. I’m all for manufacturer authentication, just not visible externally or too small to be noticed by someone else.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/how-the-stanley-cup-went-viral

In 2019, the brand’s now star product, the forty-ounce Quencher, was selling so poorly that the company had stopped restocking or marketing it. A partnership with the Buy Guide, an affiliate-marketing site based in Utah, where the Quenchers were popular among Mormon mothers, saved it. Coached by the Buy Guide, in 2020, Stanley launched a new Web site and an affiliate-marketing system through which fans could make money by driving sales

Outsourcing marketing is marketing

What might appear to be an organic phenomenon, though, is actually an engineered corporate crossover. Companies prepare carefully, and expensively, to cultivate their moments of ubiquity. They leverage our attention, the same way an influencer does, to convert online viewers into fans and customers.

That’s not what trademarks are for in practice. They are for signaling status. Any visible trademarked logo you see is for status.

Right, the visible trademarked logo on e.g. LingLong tires is for status.

I’m all for manufacturer authentication, just not visible externally or too small to be noticed by someone else.

It'll be way better when people have to show the bottom of their Stanley cups to show that they are part of the latest trend than when they show the side.

A partnership with the Buy Guide, an affiliate-marketing site based in Utah, where the Quenchers were popular among Mormon mothers, saved it. Coached by the Buy Guide, in 2020, Stanley launched a new Web site and an affiliate-marketing system through which fans could make money by driving sales

The partnership only happened after they sold the ten thousand units they bought at their own risk in no time.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats