Just watched it. I like the idea of it, kind of reminds me of the old Wilkins coffee ads, but it really doesn’t fly the way it’s presented. It’s not shot like a comedy or anything, so you just feel like you saw actual domestic violence occur. Maybe they could have been rough housing back and forth or something?
With economies of scale you end up with basically one producer producing stuff for incredibly cheap. Take poultry for example, Tyson is like the only name you’ll see at major retailers. Even most store brands are just relabeled Tyson product. So it really doesn’t matter to them if they get a couple people sick, cause we’re else you gunna go? Blackbird farms, and pay $38 a chicken? Not the very large majority of price sensitive people living paycheck to paycheck.
Sadly it is on brand for the US. Really trying to bring back the good ole days where the white man can do whatever with impunity. Keeping women in their place, bare foot and pregnant without means.
No, the First Amendment only protects you from the government. “Free speech” is a philosophical principle which has nothing to do with governments directly.
However, an “advertising standards board” that decides what can and cannot be posted publicly sounds pretty governmental to me.
But even when free speech wasn’t forced it wouldn’t force channels to carry your advertisement.
Of course, but that still isn’t any kind of universal standards board, that’s individual channels deciding independently.
Yes, the company that made the ad. Unless something happened that I’m not aware of, nothing has happened to the marketing firm who made the ad nor the various companies who served the ad to audiences.
The question was phrased in a way asking if an ad platform ran it across their standards and practices to see if the ad should be aired. The ad was in poor taste, but it could be shown on network television so no one stopped it. The risk for showing a controversial ad is near zero. The only company dealing with a boycott is the company that was advertising its product.
That’s not what free speech is. Free speech doesn’t let you say whatever you want to anyone, it’s intention is to protect you while speaking out against government officials and offices. Last I checked Callaway wasn’t the 4th branch of the government, let’s not give turkey neck any ideas.
The FCC should be regulating ads like this, but this is a clown country and capitalism says domestic violence is a viable commodity to sell.
While the topic was abhorrent and in bad taste, I don’t think there was ever a time when the FCC banned jokes about spouse/family abuse.
The Honeymooners regularly joked about the husband finally breaking and beating his wife. I Love Lucy had an episode where Lucy tried to get a sunburn so Ricky wouldn’t beat her as hard for buying an expensive dress. The Simpsons had Homer choking Bart as a running gag. All these shows were on Broadcast TV.
The FCC being useless and bought off still doesn’t mean that Callaway gets special first amendment protections. They’re a corporation, they aren’t protected from consumers and retailers dropping their products for promoting crimes, or from potential lawsuits as a result of harmful marketing.
Again, this topic has nothing to do with free speech.
I bring it up because companies which broadcast and publish material are generally given greater deference by the public for showing material they disagree with. As long as the standards are adhered to evenly, the broadcaster isn’t going to be boycotted for an ad. No one is boycotting the television stations and streamers for airing this ad; all the attention is going to Calloway.
The consequences of free speech are felt by those paying for it in public opinion, not those serving it.
This post is about Costco boycotting the company who commissioned and approved the ad to represent them and their products. How would you propose costco boycotts a TV network that they have no direct ties to? You do understand costco is a retail chain that sells physical products, in physical stores. They don’t operate the TV networks or manage internet personalities and their sponsors. Short of putting out broad statements claiming NBC or Fox or whoever support domestic violence (which would open them up to slander and libel lawsuits that they’d very likely lose), I don’t know what else you’re demanding they do. They stopped doing business with Callaway by no longer promoting or offering their products.
Again, none of this has anything to do with your right to address or protest the US government. I’m starting to think you might not have ever actually read the bill of rights.
Free speech doesn’t let you say whatever you want to anyone, it’s intention is to protect you while speaking out against government officials and offices.
It sounds like you’re getting freedom of speech mixed up with the First Amendment. They aren’t the same thing. The First Amendment’s intention is to protect your freedom of speech from the government. If you want your freedom of speech protected from other things (such as your employer), the First Amendment won’t protect you.
No sir, no confusion here. You and I both said the same thing. Freedom of speech / free speech are the same thing in the US, a very specific legal construct under the first amendment, which many people don’t understand the boundaries of. I have a degree in this field, so I’m pretty up to speed on basic civil rights. Hence why I questioned the other user on why they think costco boycotting callaway because of a gross chud ad had anything to do with a law that deals with government overreach.
Now if the ad depicted the dude tackling Trump to the ground and threatening him for touching their underage caddy, and the FBI raided their offices in response, NOW we’d be talking about a first amendment issue as that’d be direct political commentary and an illegal response by the government.
To be fair, it wasn’t Callaway directly. It was Good Good Golf, a golf youtube channel, that aired the ad. Callaway had a partnership with them to cobrand the golf club, but dropped Good Good immediately after the ad and canceled the branded club.
Callaway still deserves the backlash from associating with them though and apparently someone giving the ok for the ad.
Personally I think that if you set out to invent the most boring sport you wouldn’t be able to beat golf but I accept that some people strangely do find it attractive and they’re not all toxic masculinity “alpha” types, so they should really have seen that one coming.
There is absolutely nothing about a golf course that resembles nature. It’s nothing but chemicals and underpaid guys with gas fume belching machines.
If you want a wandering outdoor sport with real nature, try out frisbee golf or field archery. They also have the bonus of not destroying habitats and polluting local waterways with way too much nitrogen fertilizer.
Aye and no. Don’t get me wrong, golf courses are as you say fertiliser polluted and lacking in biodiversity. But the rough, surrounding the whole course, and the woods they’re often placed in certainly resemble nature. There’s still birds, foxes, squirrels, etc, going about.
Certainly in Scotland at least, which is my only personal experience of courses. And being the home of golf I don’t think it’s disingenuous for me to use that as a basis for the claim.
I have seen videos and pictures of courses in places like Florida though and if a Scottish course is a tragedy of nature, a Florida course is an abomination.
You’re right that Scotland and a few other places with a climate identical to Scotland it’s fine. That is a very small portion of the world’s golf courses.
I haven’t played golf yet (only minigolf), but i could see me enjoying it on a warm spring day with some clouds to take a stroll on the green while actually pursuing a specific goal. But I would rather take a walk in the woods, which is a much more relaxing area to be in.
I’m quite fond of golf (it’s really cheap to play near me) and honestly there’s a steep learning curve. And it’s only fun once you get past that. But I like how you get instant feedback on how you did, especially if you play with friends. Improving at golf feels great, but I imagine it kinda sucks once you plateau.
I’m NGL, initially i thought “This is probably one of those wacky ads taken out of context.” And no, it’s really really super gross. There’s nothing humorous about it, it’s just a really serious ad about pushing down and threatening a woman who touches your golf club.
It wouldn’t be any better if the victim was a man either. The fact that there’s no other words except ‘the victim’ is telling.
It’s all so… plausible. His shove, her little cry of pain and surprise and fear, the way he leans down and tells her not to touch his club and then stalks away and furiously grabs the club as he leaves. The ad would have been better if it had been escalated to Looney Tunes levels of reaction, but instead they leave it in this alarmingly real area of domestic violence.
That was so much more fucked up than I expected. This has to be intentional, it is very hard to believe that anyone thought this made for a good commercial in any way other than to appeal to chuds who enjoy violence against women. It is blatant and explicit, the mask is off.
To add just a little bit of extra “fuck you” to the situation, this was the first advertisement from Callaway featuring women. Practically progressive!
So if you walk into an electronics lab and see a piece of equipment with squee 😍 all these cool dials! 😍 and 🥰 🥰 lights!!! 🥰 🥰 and a threatening 😠 sign that says “don’t touch,” and you turn a dial just a little, but you totally didn’t hurt anything, who was in the wrong now that the equipment isn’t calibrated? The person for making the threatening sign? The person for leaving their equipment where any toddler could get to it? Or the the toddler for not having agency enough to know not to touch something that doesn’t belong to them? Are you going to pay for the engineering time it took a team to calibrate the equipment for a First Article Test the next week? You’re going to pay for the customers to fly back home after flying in on a Sunday for a Monday/Tuesday test that now can’t happen?
Just because you don’t assign a value to a golf club doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a value to the person who bought it, trained with it, and went through the effort to carry it somewhere to play golf. And golf clubs or engineering labs aside, you don’t seem like you’ve ever had something broken by someone else before you even got a chance to use it. Are you going to refund the guy’s once in a lifetime golf vacation because you don’t know what forces a graphite shaft can/can’t withstand? Are you going to replace his grandpa’s headcover that he uses because it reminds him of his deceased grandpa teaching him golf?
The engineering lab would obviously have access controls because of people who don’t understand what they’re doing. Someone’s golf clubs on a golf course, within sight of the owner and within asking distance to see if it’s OK to look at one can usually rely on common sense and etiquette. Usually…
Again, you’re assigning a value of zero to someone else’s property.
If you’re on your way to your landlord with $500 to make rent for the month and get mugged it’s a lot different if you’ve got plenty of money in the bank and need to make another trip to retreive more versus if it’s the last $500 you had to your name and you get evicted for not making rent.
To prove my point, kindly take your most prized possession and destroy it. Post pictures here when you’re done for verification and open another thread moaning about how your stuff is broken and there’s nothing you could’ve done to stop it from happening.
So you agree with the ad’s message then?
I never said that and you shouldn’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t think people being secure in their property was such a debatable topic, but at least I understand now why invite-only, membership-required golf courses exist.
Again, you’re assigning a value of zero to someone else’s property.
So, speaking of putting words in people’s mouths, I never said that.
What I am saying is, if you see someone about to touch your stuff without asking, then the usual, sensible action is to say something along the lines of ‘hey, stop!’ Not tackle them to the ground like a linebacker.
Yes, golf clubs are expensive. I have friends who golf, and one of the things that has convinced me I don’t want to is them talking about the price of their clubs.
However, I have never yet seen a golf club that is so fragile that it will shatter into pieces when touched (and if you watch the ad, all she’s doing is reaching out to touch them). Nor do they electrocute anyone who touches them. Therefore there is absolutely no fucking reason to assult someone for touching them without asking. Yell at them, maybe. Actually attack them, no.
So, speaking of putting words in people’s mouths, I never said that.
Still haven’t seen you posting a picture of you destroying your most prized possession and then whining about how there’s nothing anyone could do. So I guess it’s only your stuff that you place a value on.
one of the things that has convinced me I don’t want to is them talking about the price of their clubs.
Just because it’s not worth it to you doesn’t mean it’s not worth it to them. If you’re ever looking to get into it then Costco currently carries some reasonably priced clubs…
I have never yet seen a golf club that is so fragile that it will shatter into pieces when touched
I’ve seen some persimmon wood clubs with wooden shafts that I wouldn’t touch, but then again I’m respectful of other people’s stuff.
Nor do they electrocute anyone who touches them.
I’ve known people to have a concealed carry stashed in their golf bag.
This portion of this thread has turned into a trolley problem where a guy standing next to a lever has one of his golf clubs laying on one track, and someone voluntarily laid down on the empty track while he was standing at the lever. He’s going to catch shit either way because of someone else’s actions (“your stuff’s broke!” versus “why’d you do that?”). I don’t think anyone’s arguing that the person at the lever/club owner created the setup to the trolley problem.
I don’t see a difference between the golf club and an ironworker’s spud wrench in his tool bag. If someone pulls it out of the bag and drops it into a storm grate early some morning, but the golfer is going to be short a club and the worker will have to go to work without all the required tools on the tool list. At some point the club/tool/purchase has to actually be used for its intended purpose and go from a “securely locked up” state (in a locked house/vehicle) to an “in use” state where someone is clearly using it. Before this thread I’d have thought it was axiomatic that you don’t do something like run up to someone while they’re actively using a tool/machine, but I guess some folks need to be told: if you see a golfer lined up at a ball and concentrating on it, then he’s actively golfing and you shouldn’t interfere. Likewise with going and grabbing a hard hat off a worker’s head. My argument is that the golfing stand bag, next to the golfer, on a golf course is still actively in use even if you think it’s not. The tool bag is in use if the worker has set it on the ground to juggle car keys and a cup of coffee next to their vehicle. They’re a professional in their domain and you don’t get to be an outsider and set rules for their domain.
I work in marketing. There’s a point where where you make so much money you honestly believe you take massive shits and everyone thinks it smells great.
Looked it up, apparently they did an Obsession parody, but no one got the reference so it looked like the CEO of the company just pushed a woman to the ground for trying to touch his golf clubs.
I’ve seen the ad, I didn’t get the reference either. I haven’t seen Obsession, but apparently that’s what that was in reference to…
If you have to be told what the reference is, you’re probably not doing references right.
I honestly don’t give a fuck if it was a reference to something, depicting violence against women to protect your fucking golf clubs from cooties or whatever is wildly unacceptable. The fact that even the script got approved is mind boggling, let alone that the shoot, editing, and distribution all pushed it through.
Callaway is now on my ‘never buy, even used or on sale’ list.
Na, I’m cool with buying second hand preemo stuff. My money isn’t going to them, and no one is going to notice the logo flying 300 yards through the air.
Thank you for the context! I’ve seen the ad in passing and really for the life of me, couldn’t understand why anyone thought that was a good idea. Now I kinda get it. It’s still terrible, but at least it’s not just “haha, hurting women funny”.
It was the guys IRL girlfriend and it was an obvious joke commercial. It could have easily been the same commercial with the girlfriend shoving the guy if they were her clubs or a guy shoving his brother and no one would have batted an eye.
Also, you say “violently shoves” and that’s what it was supposed to be made to look like, but if you actually look at the commercial he barely pushes her at all. It had nothing to do with being sexist or promoting violence against women. It was a funny lil “don’t touch my golf club” commercial that had nothing to do with promoting violence.
But he didn’t depict the other way around, they depicted a man shoving a woman down on the ground over a golf club. Nothing is funny about that and perpetuates the idea that this is ok for younger generations
Anyone who would actually believe it’s acceptable to shove tackle anyone down from touching a golf club is an idiot. The fact that you’re harping over an ad where it was a guy doing it to a woman is just the proof of that. Sounds like you’re sexist.
Wait… What?
The golf club company ran an ad where a woman went to touch a golf club and her man pushed her down and threatened her for her transgression.
Costco stopped carrying their clubs in response
Just watched it. I like the idea of it, kind of reminds me of the old Wilkins coffee ads, but it really doesn’t fly the way it’s presented. It’s not shot like a comedy or anything, so you just feel like you saw actual domestic violence occur. Maybe they could have been rough housing back and forth or something?
Does the US not have some kind of advertising standards board that you have to get adverts approved before you’re allowed to publicly post them?
We don’t have standards keeping the ass parasites out of the lettuce, take a second and ponder
Thank god it’s just lettuce though… Right?
Only the salad eaters get the unstoppable diarrea. If you want the flesh eating worms you need to choose the beef.
If you eat both, you can let them fight it out in your gut
We generally presume companies will choose not to do that to their own reputations, but apparently that presumption was wrong.
With economies of scale you end up with basically one producer producing stuff for incredibly cheap. Take poultry for example, Tyson is like the only name you’ll see at major retailers. Even most store brands are just relabeled Tyson product. So it really doesn’t matter to them if they get a couple people sick, cause we’re else you gunna go? Blackbird farms, and pay $38 a chicken? Not the very large majority of price sensitive people living paycheck to paycheck.
Sadly it is on brand for the US. Really trying to bring back the good ole days where the white man can do whatever with impunity. Keeping women in their place, bare foot and pregnant without means.
Dude, no, this country is tragicomically fucked up!
That sounds like it would go against the First Amendment.
deleted by creator
Nope. Free speech.
Free speech just protect you from the government, gone out of the window anyway as of late.
But even when free speech wasn’t forced it wouldn’t force channels to carry your advertisement.
No, the First Amendment only protects you from the government. “Free speech” is a philosophical principle which has nothing to do with governments directly.
However, an “advertising standards board” that decides what can and cannot be posted publicly sounds pretty governmental to me.
Of course, but that still isn’t any kind of universal standards board, that’s individual channels deciding independently.
No one is boycotting the companies which showed the ad.
Imagine commenting this on a comment discussing how an entire retailer is boycotting one of the companies involved.
Yes, the company that made the ad. Unless something happened that I’m not aware of, nothing has happened to the marketing firm who made the ad nor the various companies who served the ad to audiences.
The question was phrased in a way asking if an ad platform ran it across their standards and practices to see if the ad should be aired. The ad was in poor taste, but it could be shown on network television so no one stopped it. The risk for showing a controversial ad is near zero. The only company dealing with a boycott is the company that was advertising its product.
That’s not what free speech is. Free speech doesn’t let you say whatever you want to anyone, it’s intention is to protect you while speaking out against government officials and offices. Last I checked Callaway wasn’t the 4th branch of the government, let’s not give turkey neck any ideas.
The FCC should be regulating ads like this, but this is a clown country and capitalism says domestic violence is a viable commodity to sell.
While the topic was abhorrent and in bad taste, I don’t think there was ever a time when the FCC banned jokes about spouse/family abuse.
The Honeymooners regularly joked about the husband finally breaking and beating his wife. I Love Lucy had an episode where Lucy tried to get a sunburn so Ricky wouldn’t beat her as hard for buying an expensive dress. The Simpsons had Homer choking Bart as a running gag. All these shows were on Broadcast TV.
The FCC being useless and bought off still doesn’t mean that Callaway gets special first amendment protections. They’re a corporation, they aren’t protected from consumers and retailers dropping their products for promoting crimes, or from potential lawsuits as a result of harmful marketing.
Again, this topic has nothing to do with free speech.
I bring it up because companies which broadcast and publish material are generally given greater deference by the public for showing material they disagree with. As long as the standards are adhered to evenly, the broadcaster isn’t going to be boycotted for an ad. No one is boycotting the television stations and streamers for airing this ad; all the attention is going to Calloway.
The consequences of free speech are felt by those paying for it in public opinion, not those serving it.
This post is about Costco boycotting the company who commissioned and approved the ad to represent them and their products. How would you propose costco boycotts a TV network that they have no direct ties to? You do understand costco is a retail chain that sells physical products, in physical stores. They don’t operate the TV networks or manage internet personalities and their sponsors. Short of putting out broad statements claiming NBC or Fox or whoever support domestic violence (which would open them up to slander and libel lawsuits that they’d very likely lose), I don’t know what else you’re demanding they do. They stopped doing business with Callaway by no longer promoting or offering their products.
Again, none of this has anything to do with your right to address or protest the US government. I’m starting to think you might not have ever actually read the bill of rights.
It sounds like you’re getting freedom of speech mixed up with the First Amendment. They aren’t the same thing. The First Amendment’s intention is to protect your freedom of speech from the government. If you want your freedom of speech protected from other things (such as your employer), the First Amendment won’t protect you.
No sir, no confusion here. You and I both said the same thing. Freedom of speech / free speech are the same thing in the US, a very specific legal construct under the first amendment, which many people don’t understand the boundaries of. I have a degree in this field, so I’m pretty up to speed on basic civil rights. Hence why I questioned the other user on why they think costco boycotting callaway because of a gross chud ad had anything to do with a law that deals with government overreach.
Now if the ad depicted the dude tackling Trump to the ground and threatening him for touching their underage caddy, and the FBI raided their offices in response, NOW we’d be talking about a first amendment issue as that’d be direct political commentary and an illegal response by the government.
I’m not talking about the legal construct, though. I’m talking about the philosophical principle.
To be fair, it wasn’t Callaway directly. It was Good Good Golf, a golf youtube channel, that aired the ad. Callaway had a partnership with them to cobrand the golf club, but dropped Good Good immediately after the ad and canceled the branded club.
Callaway still deserves the backlash from associating with them though and apparently someone giving the ok for the ad.
Thank you for the added context. It is slightly less worse, but still bad.
Kinda, callaway approved the ad, os maybe they all just suck
Video of the ad.
It’s such a gross concept. Wild anyone thought this was a funny, gotta be pretty deep in bro to not see red flags.
That’s an ad? It looks like such low quality garbage shot on some dumbass’s phone.
Like what is the point they are trying to make even?
Is the club so fragile that it’ll break if touched?
Golfers are seriously superstitious?
Women suck and can’t golf?
If anything it would have been a better commercial to do the opposite, hand the club out to literally everyone that’s playing and they all hit better.
“Our golf clubs are so good, it’ll make you want to beat a woman.” Callaway Golf Clubs
They claim they were trying to riff on the movie obsession.
No, they’re playing on a fetish, just like sexy women in a car ad, but infinitely grosser.
I mean, ‘golf company owner’ is already selecting for the biggest chud in existence.
Personally I think that if you set out to invent the most boring sport you wouldn’t be able to beat golf but I accept that some people strangely do find it attractive and they’re not all toxic masculinity “alpha” types, so they should really have seen that one coming.
I don’t like golf, but at least it gives you an afternoon’s walk in something resembling nature
Cricket on the other hand, takes a week to play and is just running back and forth
There is absolutely nothing about a golf course that resembles nature. It’s nothing but chemicals and underpaid guys with gas fume belching machines.
If you want a wandering outdoor sport with real nature, try out frisbee golf or field archery. They also have the bonus of not destroying habitats and polluting local waterways with way too much nitrogen fertilizer.
Aye and no. Don’t get me wrong, golf courses are as you say fertiliser polluted and lacking in biodiversity. But the rough, surrounding the whole course, and the woods they’re often placed in certainly resemble nature. There’s still birds, foxes, squirrels, etc, going about.
Certainly in Scotland at least, which is my only personal experience of courses. And being the home of golf I don’t think it’s disingenuous for me to use that as a basis for the claim.
I have seen videos and pictures of courses in places like Florida though and if a Scottish course is a tragedy of nature, a Florida course is an abomination.
You’re right that Scotland and a few other places with a climate identical to Scotland it’s fine. That is a very small portion of the world’s golf courses.
Is it true that golf was invented when someone wacked the severed head of a goblin down a rabbit hole with a shillelagh?
Of course not, what nonsense! They were hitting haggis eggs back down into their underground burrow with a wee practice caber
I haven’t played golf yet (only minigolf), but i could see me enjoying it on a warm spring day with some clouds to take a stroll on the green while actually pursuing a specific goal. But I would rather take a walk in the woods, which is a much more relaxing area to be in.
I’m quite fond of golf (it’s really cheap to play near me) and honestly there’s a steep learning curve. And it’s only fun once you get past that. But I like how you get instant feedback on how you did, especially if you play with friends. Improving at golf feels great, but I imagine it kinda sucks once you plateau.
It’s fun to play, but I really don’t understand how people watch it regularly.
Croquet is more boring than golf. And I fucking hate golf and golfers.
I’m NGL, initially i thought “This is probably one of those wacky ads taken out of context.” And no, it’s really really super gross. There’s nothing humorous about it, it’s just a really serious ad about pushing down and threatening a woman who touches your golf club.
It wouldn’t be any better if the victim was a man either. The fact that there’s no other words except ‘the victim’ is telling.
It’s all so… plausible. His shove, her little cry of pain and surprise and fear, the way he leans down and tells her not to touch his club and then stalks away and furiously grabs the club as he leaves. The ad would have been better if it had been escalated to Looney Tunes levels of reaction, but instead they leave it in this alarmingly real area of domestic violence.
Lmao, “This is not who I am.” Dude, you’re not an actor, you seemed to do the thing pretty well
That was so much more fucked up than I expected. This has to be intentional, it is very hard to believe that anyone thought this made for a good commercial in any way other than to appeal to chuds who enjoy violence against women. It is blatant and explicit, the mask is off.
To add just a little bit of extra “fuck you” to the situation, this was the first advertisement from Callaway featuring women. Practically progressive!
Even if it was a guy pushing another guy I don’t see how that would’ve ever been a funny spoof skit.
There was no way to salvage this.
Say the guy had just grabbed the woman’s arm or put his arm in front of her to stop her instead. You still have that threat he makes towards her.
Even if that threat was changed to “no one touches my club except me”, you still have that underlying implication of a threat.
There’s no universe that could’ve salvaged this.
I think the only way would be to have it be Bart and Homer replicating the old Butterfinger ads with Homer’s golf club.
So if you walk into an electronics lab and see a piece of equipment with squee 😍 all these cool dials! 😍 and 🥰 🥰 lights!!! 🥰 🥰 and a threatening 😠 sign that says “don’t touch,” and you turn a dial just a little, but you totally didn’t hurt anything, who was in the wrong now that the equipment isn’t calibrated? The person for making the threatening sign? The person for leaving their equipment where any toddler could get to it? Or the the toddler for not having agency enough to know not to touch something that doesn’t belong to them? Are you going to pay for the engineering time it took a team to calibrate the equipment for a First Article Test the next week? You’re going to pay for the customers to fly back home after flying in on a Sunday for a Monday/Tuesday test that now can’t happen?
Just because you don’t assign a value to a golf club doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a value to the person who bought it, trained with it, and went through the effort to carry it somewhere to play golf. And golf clubs or engineering labs aside, you don’t seem like you’ve ever had something broken by someone else before you even got a chance to use it. Are you going to refund the guy’s once in a lifetime golf vacation because you don’t know what forces a graphite shaft can/can’t withstand? Are you going to replace his grandpa’s headcover that he uses because it reminds him of his deceased grandpa teaching him golf?
The engineering lab would obviously have access controls because of people who don’t understand what they’re doing. Someone’s golf clubs on a golf course, within sight of the owner and within asking distance to see if it’s OK to look at one can usually rely on common sense and etiquette. Usually…
That’s no excuse for violence
You’re lucky to live such a charmed life to be so wealthy that you can absorb an infinite amount of the universe’s shots at you.
So you agree with the ad’s message then? That violently shoving people to the ground if they reach for your golf clubs without asking is okay?
Again, you’re assigning a value of zero to someone else’s property.
If you’re on your way to your landlord with $500 to make rent for the month and get mugged it’s a lot different if you’ve got plenty of money in the bank and need to make another trip to retreive more versus if it’s the last $500 you had to your name and you get evicted for not making rent.
To prove my point, kindly take your most prized possession and destroy it. Post pictures here when you’re done for verification and open another thread moaning about how your stuff is broken and there’s nothing you could’ve done to stop it from happening.
I never said that and you shouldn’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t think people being secure in their property was such a debatable topic, but at least I understand now why invite-only, membership-required golf courses exist.
So, speaking of putting words in people’s mouths, I never said that.
What I am saying is, if you see someone about to touch your stuff without asking, then the usual, sensible action is to say something along the lines of ‘hey, stop!’ Not tackle them to the ground like a linebacker.
Yes, golf clubs are expensive. I have friends who golf, and one of the things that has convinced me I don’t want to is them talking about the price of their clubs.
However, I have never yet seen a golf club that is so fragile that it will shatter into pieces when touched (and if you watch the ad, all she’s doing is reaching out to touch them). Nor do they electrocute anyone who touches them. Therefore there is absolutely no fucking reason to assult someone for touching them without asking. Yell at them, maybe. Actually attack them, no.
Still haven’t seen you posting a picture of you destroying your most prized possession and then whining about how there’s nothing anyone could do. So I guess it’s only your stuff that you place a value on.
Just because it’s not worth it to you doesn’t mean it’s not worth it to them. If you’re ever looking to get into it then Costco currently carries some reasonably priced clubs…
I’ve seen some persimmon wood clubs with wooden shafts that I wouldn’t touch, but then again I’m respectful of other people’s stuff.
I’ve known people to have a concealed carry stashed in their golf bag.
This portion of this thread has turned into a trolley problem where a guy standing next to a lever has one of his golf clubs laying on one track, and someone voluntarily laid down on the empty track while he was standing at the lever. He’s going to catch shit either way because of someone else’s actions (“your stuff’s broke!” versus “why’d you do that?”). I don’t think anyone’s arguing that the person at the lever/club owner created the setup to the trolley problem.
I don’t see a difference between the golf club and an ironworker’s spud wrench in his tool bag. If someone pulls it out of the bag and drops it into a storm grate early some morning, but the golfer is going to be short a club and the worker will have to go to work without all the required tools on the tool list. At some point the club/tool/purchase has to actually be used for its intended purpose and go from a “securely locked up” state (in a locked house/vehicle) to an “in use” state where someone is clearly using it. Before this thread I’d have thought it was axiomatic that you don’t do something like run up to someone while they’re actively using a tool/machine, but I guess some folks need to be told: if you see a golfer lined up at a ball and concentrating on it, then he’s actively golfing and you shouldn’t interfere. Likewise with going and grabbing a hard hat off a worker’s head. My argument is that the golfing stand bag, next to the golfer, on a golf course is still actively in use even if you think it’s not. The tool bag is in use if the worker has set it on the ground to juggle car keys and a cup of coffee next to their vehicle. They’re a professional in their domain and you don’t get to be an outsider and set rules for their domain.
holy shit lmao. i can just imagine all the people involved in making this chuckling to themselves over how funny they think it is.
I work in marketing. There’s a point where where you make so much money you honestly believe you take massive shits and everyone thinks it smells great.
That was probably the worst ad I’ve ever seen. Concept, execution, humor, morality, all terrible. There’s not one redeeming factor here.
i had to watch an ad before i got to watch the ad
Looked it up, apparently they did an Obsession parody, but no one got the reference so it looked like the CEO of the company just pushed a woman to the ground for trying to touch his golf clubs.
I’ve seen the ad, I didn’t get the reference either. I haven’t seen Obsession, but apparently that’s what that was in reference to…
If you have to be told what the reference is, you’re probably not doing references right.
I honestly don’t give a fuck if it was a reference to something, depicting violence against women to protect your fucking golf clubs from cooties or whatever is wildly unacceptable. The fact that even the script got approved is mind boggling, let alone that the shoot, editing, and distribution all pushed it through.
Callaway is now on my ‘never buy, even used or on sale’ list.
Na, I’m cool with buying second hand preemo stuff. My money isn’t going to them, and no one is going to notice the logo flying 300 yards through the air.
you throw your golf clubs 300 yards?
Only the sand wedge.
Personally I don’t think any anti-woman message was intended by it.
I don’t think this is anywhere on the level of “Has good jeans/genes”
That said I don’t play golf so I wasn’t going to buy the clubs even if it was a transwoman shoving Elon Musk
Thank you for the context! I’ve seen the ad in passing and really for the life of me, couldn’t understand why anyone thought that was a good idea. Now I kinda get it. It’s still terrible, but at least it’s not just “haha, hurting women funny”.
It is awfully suspicious how they make this ad after the CEO sells a bunch of stock while also doing this during a stock buyback.
Some have theorized the ad was done intentionally to make the stock buyback cheaper
Why did it have to be his partner he pushed down helpless? Why couldn’t he push down a friend guy?
A joke ad that was blown way out of proportion by a bunch of people saying it promoted women’s violence. An overreaction.
A woman reaches for his club and he violently SHOVES her to the ground. How is that in any way not violence against a woman.
It was the guys IRL girlfriend and it was an obvious joke commercial. It could have easily been the same commercial with the girlfriend shoving the guy if they were her clubs or a guy shoving his brother and no one would have batted an eye.
Also, you say “violently shoves” and that’s what it was supposed to be made to look like, but if you actually look at the commercial he barely pushes her at all. It had nothing to do with being sexist or promoting violence against women. It was a funny lil “don’t touch my golf club” commercial that had nothing to do with promoting violence.
You keep saying “joke commercial”. What was the joke?
That someone would violently guard against having their golf club touched.
But he didn’t depict the other way around, they depicted a man shoving a woman down on the ground over a golf club. Nothing is funny about that and perpetuates the idea that this is ok for younger generations
Anyone who would actually believe it’s acceptable to shove tackle anyone down from touching a golf club is an idiot. The fact that you’re harping over an ad where it was a guy doing it to a woman is just the proof of that. Sounds like you’re sexist.
What was the joke?