If The Bbc Are Nauseatingly Woke, How Bad Are Google ?

[Mister M]

2 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

You answer the question then :

 

Since the vast majority of families still consist of a man, and a woman and kid(s), and of those the great majority are same race, why do Google choose three family pictures which do not include any of those ?

Why (unless they have some hidden agenda) ?

Because gays & lesbians - whatever their racial origin exist and contribute to society.

My question to you: why not?

Edited January 16, 2023 by Mister M

[Chekhov]

51 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

It's a marketing ploy, it's designed so their products appeal to a wider audience.

Sadly Al, I do not think it's a marketing ploy, unless gay couples make up the majority of people who use Google's services, which I very much doubt.

Why would Google think using gay couples in an advert make them more money ? I could understand it only if it were an advert, or E Mail, sent to people who were known to be gay.

[Al Bundy]

17 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Really??? Are you having a laugh?

 

I can assure you there is nothing remotely funny about it.

 

Do you think kids growing up are now more confused about all this gender nonsense, or not?

 

 

[Chekhov]

11 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Because gays & lesbians - whatever their racial origin exist and contribute to society.

My question to you: why not?

Because I would estimate that gay couples who have babies must constitute well under 1%, but we'll go with 1% anyway. So assuming the pictures were chosen randomly (and not with an agenda) the odds of two gay couples would be 1 in 10,000. I have nothing whatsoever against mixed race couples, we are just talking statistically here, but since most couples, of whatever colour, are same colour you can multiply that 1 in 10,000 up even further.

My point is that it is blindingly obvious (to anyone but the most blinkered) that those pics were deliberately chosen with an agenda.

 

>>Because gays & lesbians - whatever their racial origin exist and contribute to society.<<

 

Where did I even remotely imply that they did not ?

Strawman argument on the rise here methinks

Edited January 16, 2023 by Chekhov

[Al Bundy]

13 minutes ago, Mister M said:

I don't even think it's that.

It's just whining when he's in a privileged position of living in a society where being straight is the norm and if you're gay or lesbian  you're regarded as a freak.

All of a sudden gays are getting a tiny bit of recognition as he's pi$$ing his nappy and chucking his dummy out of the pram. It's beyond pathetic

Privileged!!

 

😂

 

 

That the new buzzword?

[Chekhov]

48 minutes ago, sibon said:

Now we are getting somewhere. 

I’d estimate that almost nobody that I spend time with thinks like that. 

Maybe you would like to share your reasons for thinking like that.  And maybe offer some proof that “most people” think as you do.

We are not getting anywhere because, for the purposes of  this thread, this is all irrelevant anyway.

This is the point :

 

Since the vast majority of families still consist of a man, and a woman and kid(s), and of those the great majority are same race, why do Google choose three family pictures which do not include any of those ?

Why (unless they have some hidden agenda) ?

[Mister M]

7 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

I can assure you there is nothing remotely funny about it.

 

Do you think kids growing up are now more confused about all this gender nonsense, or not?

 

 

Firstly conflating a few ads on TV or the internet containing an image of a gay couple with child abuse is borderline offensive. 

If children are confused about their gender identity, or feel they cannot live up to to the ideals that society places on being male or female, that's nothing to do with a few ads, but something a bit more fundamental about society and the way it is structured.

6 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Because I would estimate that gay couples who have babies must constitute well under 1%, but we'll go with 1% anyway. So assuming the pictures were chosen randomly (and not with an agenda) the odds of two gay couples would be 1 in 10,000. I have nothing whatsoever against mixed race couples, we are just talking statistically here, but since most couples, of whatever colour, are same colour you can multiply that 1 in 10,000 up even further.

My point is that it is blindingly obvious (to anyone but the most blinkered) that those pics were deliberately chosen with an agenda.

 

>>Because gays & lesbians - whatever their racial origin exist and contribute to society.<<

 

Where did I even remotely imply that they did not ?

Strawman argument on the rise here methinks

So what's your agenda in pinpointing this? 

 you got problems with gays & lesbians or something?

Edited January 16, 2023 by Mister M

[Guest sibon]

3 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

We are not getting anywhere 

We certainly are.

 

Believe me.

 

 

[Al Bundy]

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

Firstly conflating a few ads on TV or the internet containing an image of a gay couple with child abuse is borderline offensive. 

If children are confused about their gender identity, or feel they cannot live up to to the ideals that society places on being male or female, that's nothing to do with a few ads, but something a bit more fundamental about society and the way it is structured.

That wasn't my question.

 

I will try again...

 

Do you think children growing up are more confused than ever because of growing gender identity nonsense?

[Mister M]

4 minutes ago, Al Bundy said:

Privileged!!

 

😂

 

 

That the new buzzword?

If you've grown up being gay or lesbian in a society that at best ignores who you really are, you'd have an understanding.

If you're not gay or lesbian, but have the capacity to empathise with others in a different situaltion to you, you'd have an understanding.

I guess you've got no understanding. 

1 minute ago, Al Bundy said:

That wasn't my question.

 

I will try again...

 

Do you think children growing up are more confused than ever because of growing gender identity nonsense?

You can try all you want. I've answered your question. If you don't like my answer, tough.