Have you seen that
”
red-tag sale
”
ad? The one where the dad uses the red-tag guy as a substitute
Santa Claus?
It really ticks me off.
Have you seen that “red-tag sale” ad? The one where the dad uses the red-tag guy as a substitute Santa Claus?
It really ticks me off.
The hapless red-tag guy says “but I’m a red tag!”
The dad replies in a sneering tone, “He’s a kid, and you’re a red suit. Ho ho ho.” Then he walks off.
Ow. Is this supposed to be funny? Make us want to buy cars? It makes me feel bad for the red-tag guy and then want to take the dad off in a corner and deliver a major rant.
Why bring his kid shopping if he’s too busy to look after him? Why bring the kid along if he’s too busy to look for a real Santa? What kind of example is he setting for his kid by speaking to a stranger in that way? And by bullying somebody?
No, I haven’t forgotten, it’s only an ad. It’s a form of fiction. I get that. But why would the people who thought up the ad pick on their own symbol? Why would they populate the ad with a couple of sourpusses like the dad and the kid, who, doubtless of having a great role model to learn from, makes rude faces at the red-tag guy.
After I saw this ad a couple of times and got angry each time, I asked my husband for a reality check. Maybe I was being too “PC.” Maybe my sensitive 60’s peace-and-love background was letting me get carried away.
There’s a lot of garbage on TV, in the programs and in the ads and maybe my response to this was out of line. So I asked my husband if the ad bothered him.
I hit a nerve. Turns out it bothered him at least as much as it bothered me. He completely agreed that it was a depressing vignette of a dad setting a bad example. The dad was teaching the kid that it’s okay to cheat and it’s okay to be nasty. And, as he said “Then parents wonder where the kids get it.”
He even agreed that it was a perfect microcosm of what’s wrong with so much of entertainment and the society it entertains.
Everywhere we look, free-floating gratuitous nastiness has seeped into our culture.
In the 50’s and 60’s, a few comedians made waves by using rough language and challenging the establishment. Fifty years later, rough language and rough attitudes have become commonplace. The only way to get people’s attention, it seems, is to be rougher, ruder, or raunchier.
In-your-face confrontational talk shows have replaced real debate.
Make no mistake: confrontation and competition are important building blocks of our free political and economic systems.
In business, competition for our dollars leads to lower prices and often to product improvement.
Confrontation in debates underlies our freedom of choice in a democracy.
At the same time, civility is what keeps competition and confrontation useful. When the tone is debased, with harshness, sarcasm or brutality, we move away from the rule of law and towards the rule of force.
And even though it was only “one little ad” (although repeated many times), the little moments of nastiness pile up, dull our senses and teach our kids that this is what works, this is the way to be.
It’s NOT the way to be.
