I am not reading any of this.

They were moronic for airing this, especially in today's culture. Can't believe not one person in the room got it, even without #metoo, knocking a woman over is going to be viscerally bad to many folks.
But the reaction has been crazy. I doubt anyone thinks that they were endorsing violence against women. But outrage means someone had to pay.

The best part of this whole overreaction….those stupid looking hats might leave the pro shop. Never been a fan of their look.

This thread went off the rails

Inconsiderate people tend to find people that ask them to be considerate annoying. I mean that in the literal sense of the word. He has not considered why he believes what he believes. Why real world consequences are needed for pretend actions. His explanations are shallow, unrelated, or circular. Perhaps that describes you two as well. He thinks he has well explained them, but he hasn't. His explanations are shallow and the consequences he celebrates are deep. Being a pain to that kind of thinking does not make me feel bad. Khaos is an appropriate name.


Put a hypothetical on it: If the consequences of the pretend push are that Good Good's business goes under, and as an extension of that the four women they created a second channel to promote are also substantially impacted by it are the consequences good consequences? The majority of female golf content on the internet is using golf as a vehicle to sell tits and ass. Their women's channel is one of the largest on YouTube that is actually about golf and attracts more than just horny men.

They were using their popularity to expand the non-horny women's golf audience. The entire reason it was a woman getting pushed in that skit was because they put effort into including women in golf. If they didn't it would have been a guy and none of you would be upset, because contrary to his claim his vendetta is not because of a fake push regardless of who received it.

It seems their mistake was treating women like equals rather than the fragile creatures people expect them to be.

Surely you would agree that if they pretend raped someone then they should have consequences right? Your argument that it's just pretend and should have no consequences falls apart pretty easily. So i think what khaos is saying is that yall aren't that different, it's just that his line of what's acceptable or punishable is just much lower than your line is.

I agree that this whole thing is stupid. But it's not just bc it's pretend. It's bc it's pretend and it's an innocuous push that was meant to be a joke.

Has anyone asked the woman in the commercial about it? I mean she didn't do the bit by force.

98Ag99Grad said:

---

Callaway is really hanging these guys out to dry. They've admitted it was bad and apologized but the internet wants its pound of flesh.

---

Callaway approved the ad. They are POS's for putting Good Good in front of the firing squad without stepping in front of it themselves. And I don't care if Callaway acknowledged blame. They are scumbags for what they did. Cancel culture at its finest and Golf Channel ain't much better, but what can you expect from east coast tv types.

The primary dividing line between us is not degree of violence tolerated (he tolerates more extreme violence in media than this). It is not that it is fiction (I believe some fiction deserves consequences). It is that I believe intent of the creator always matters. He does not. He says "of course intent matters, but it's not everything" then explains that if the video is bad enough at conveying intent that the audience misinterprets it then the video is bad and deserves consequences. Another way of saying intent doesn't matter, and audience impression always supersedes it.

What if the video is edited to remove the context and the intent with the purpose of intentionally making them look bad, because a lot of older golfers do not like them?

I believe that real world harms require real world harms. In other words the video must do more than make people dislike it in order for them to lose their sponsorship. He acknowledges that the video does nothing more than upset people temporarily and yet justifies canceling a multi-year sponsorship over it. He does not believe real world consequences require real world harms.

When I ask the question "Why is fictional violence bad?" It is not another way of saying "I don't think fictional violence is bad." It is literally a question about why it is bad. A request to explain the philosophy for how violence in fiction can be bad and occasionally requires real world consequences. He does not answer that, and instead implies I'm stupid for asking such an obvious question and not default accepting his interpretation as valid. He is justifying BIG consequences he should be able to provide concrete reasons why the consequences create better outcomes.


An upset audience is like a toddler throwing a tantrum. If they're upset for no reason you can beg them to stop and then bribe them to stop. You're now training them to misbehave. While it is predictable that audiences will get upset. It's predictable that sponsors will cave. It is not a definite that they should. In this case I believe most golfers are men, most men perceive this as a stupid controversy and that if Callaway and PGA don't cancel their deals their actual customers would gain respect for them rather than a resulting loss of business.

It wasn't rape. It was a bit to be funny in an ad spot. Good lord you care way too much about something extremely benign.

No. We did not. The point is that when they include rape it reveals a different intent of the video. That the reason why they include it is for the pleasure of exposing it to people. That the purpose of the video has become reducing the taboo. It's no longer about the attempt to sell a product. It is not merely that a taboo was broken, it is that the breaking of the taboo reveals intent. You have previously admitted this was not Good Good's intent.

It is not merely that it is upsetting, the justification of your consequences, it is that it has more impacts on society than merely being upsetting. When you apply punishment to the individual utilizing rape the intent is to prevent individuals with the intent of reducing the taboo of rape from producing that kind of content in the future, because they are the type of people that possess that intent. They lose funding and reduce their capacity.

When the individual doesn't have the negative intent society should have forgiveness for idle mistakes.

Answer these questions:

Quote:

---

Why is it bad to pretend to push a woman? Does it do anything other than upset you? I acknowledge it upsets you.

When is it okay to pretend to push a woman? You admit it is okay sometimes.

When is it not okay to pretend to push a woman? You say it is sometimes.

What is the purpose of the consequences you claim are justified? What is the goal outcome? Why is deleting the video and apologizing insufficient? Why do we need to inflict punishment upon a person that did not intend on upsetting you?

How big should the punishment be? Is there a limit? Or just as much as the mob can get during the limited time they care enough to pay attention?

---

You think I'm removing nuance. I'm revealing the lack of yours. You see an admission that rape is a larger taboo than pushing a woman and then respond with what amounts to "I won, they're equivalent. Both taboos, that's why I can be upset and inflict punishment."

They're not equivalent. You admit they are not. That they're not equivalent reveals motivation of producing the content, that motivation determines whether punishment is necessary.


You are not attempting to "pressure test" your ideas. You have not even thought about them which is why you think I'm the one being black and white when you're the one that says "You never push a woman. Pretend or not." And that's why they deserve consequences. That is black and white thinking. You don't always adhere to it, but you use it as a justification of punishing people severely when they accidentally violate your black and white rule.



Literally answer those questions. It will force you to think about your principles, aka pressure test them. It will perhaps change someone's mind about whether to adopt them as well.

Damn. You are good at baiting. Again I bid you good day.

hph6203 said:

---

The thread has always been about Good Good losing their sponsors. How exactly is that off the rails? That it is contentious is not the same as off the rails. I would say that someone arguing that millions in contracts being lost is justified for what was an error in execution deserves a contentious response.

I think you should actually think about the volume of consequences you are validating for pretending to push a woman. I think he should as well. He's not. You're not. What is the purpose of them? What is their goal outcome? Punish people for poor execution that didn't well convey their intended message?

Seems like an odd thing to punish someone for and an excessive amount of it.

---

I worked for a large organization that would be well known to everybody here. Very strong set of core principles. Like any business, we had different types of risk that we took on with any customer. Just the cost of doing business. But, especially with what would be a new customer, one of the things we talked about was "reputational risk". Was there something about the customer that gave us pause as to wanting to be associated with that customer if something didn't work out? Most of the time we got past that. Sometimes we didn't. Sometimes we had to tell an existing customer we could no longer help them when we perceived various types of risk, including reputational risk, exceeded our tolerance.

I think the ultimate consequences for GG have gone further than they probably should have. But do I understand companies like Callaway, Golf Channel and PGA Tour wanting to protect their billion dollar properties? I do.

I am not arguing what they can do. I am arguing what they should do, and what the audience should expect as punishment. You agree it went too far. We agree.

I am saying that the mere upset of the audience is a punishment in and of itself that creates a recognition that what they did was bad and that it reduces the likelihood they will do it again, which is the purpose of a punishment. That the audience only being satisfied when the sponsorships got cancelled was an unnecessarily demanded punishment from the audience. That when an audience demands something excessive the companies should deny the audience their demands. Not that they must deny them, should deny them.

He says it's not enough to recognize the upset, apologize and delete the video. That they deserve what they got. I am attempting to get him to explain why by asking questions for him to formulate a logical explanation as to why the upset and resulting deletion was insufficient to prevent it in the future. In my theory of punishment that is the purpose. Prevent it from occurring in the future.


I can expect people to receive consequences they don't deserve and preserve the perspective that they don't deserve them. I am not confused about what happened. Not confused about why. I am arguing it shouldn't and asking a person that is arguing it should why it should happen.

hph6203 said:

---

I am not arguing what they can do. I am arguing what they should do, and what the audience should expect as punishment. You agree it went too far. We agree.

I am saying that the mere upset of the audience is a punishment in and of itself that creates a recognition that what they did was bad and that it reduces the likelihood they will do it again, which is the purpose of a punishment. That the audience only being satisfied when the sponsorships got cancelled was an unnecessarily demanded punishment from the audience. That when an audience demands something excessive the companies should deny the audience their demands. Not that they must deny them, should deny them.

He says it's not enough to recognize the upset, apologize and delete the video. That they deserve what they got. I am attempting to get him to explain why by asking questions for him to formulate a logical explanation as to why the upset and resulting deletion was insufficient to prevent it in the future.


I can expect people to receive consequences they don't deserve and preserve the perspective that they don't deserve them. I am not confused about what happened. Not confused about why. I am arguing it shouldn't and asking a person that is arguing it should why it should happen.

---

Honestly, I'm not going to spend any time debating what Callaway should or shouldn't do. That doesn't really interest me. Their money, their decision. My life is not one bit different today than it was a week ago. I'll still buy Callaway products.

We collectively formulate a culture. If people don't ever voice an argument against an unjust outcome you allow unjust outcomes to continue. You individually are not obligated to do it, but some people should if it is in reality unjust.

You: It was undeserved. They can cancel their sponsorships.

Khaos: It was deserved. They can cancel their sponsorships.

Me: It was undeserved. They can cancel their sponsorships. They shouldn't cancel their sponsorships when it's undeserved.

Can and should are not on a spectrum. If I say they shouldn't and you say they can, we are not discussing the same concept. But when you attempt to argue against shouldn't with can you are adding weight to the side of the should argument by suggesting people disregard the shouldn't argument because what matters is they can.

Success breeds frequency. If the mob is successful in demanding unjust consequences they will continue to do it. If they are unsuccessful in demanding unjust consequences they might regulate to demanding just consequences. Even if they don't at least unjust consequences don't occur.

Callaway can cancel their sponsorship when the demanded consequence is unjust. They shouldn't.

Ok, keep tilting at that windmill.

Tilting at windmills is an idiom to describe fighting against an imaginary threat. Unjust punishments are not imaginary. Our culture has not always been this thoughtless in dealing punishments. Social media facilitated it.

hph6203 said:

---

Tilting at windmills is an idiom to describe fighting against an imaginary threat. Unjust punishments are not imaginary. Our culture has not always been this thoughtless in dealing punishments. Social media facilitated it.

---

You got the first part right in your cut-and-paste. Left out the second part, which I think is more apropos here.

"Tilting at windmills" is an English idiom that means fighting imaginary enemies or wasting time and energy on a pointless, unwinnable, or deluded struggle.

As someone who just followed this thread for updates…people who don't care enough to post again have made this thread unbearable

Dang after reading this thread, I need a Snickers

Quote:

---

Dang after reading this thread, I need a Snickers

---

Please do. You're running the risk of turning into Betty White and getting tackled which is offensive to people's moral sensibilities.

If our culture previously did not operate this way what leads you to believe it cannot revert?

hph6203 said:

---

If our culture previously did not operate this way what leads you to believe it cannot revert?

---

You said it yourself. The toxic thing that is social media. Don't know how to put that genie back in the bottle.

Duckhook said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

If our culture previously did not operate this way what leads you to believe it cannot revert?

---

You said it yourself. The toxic thing that is social media. Don't know how to put that genie back in the bottle.

---

If you remove the algorithmic preference for upset the normal discourse wouldn't be drowned out. I think most people believe the consequences were excessive, but the scale of the upset looks larger than it is due to the way social media currently functions.

My hope is that in the future with social media becoming a smaller and smaller share of SpaceX's revenue that the companies decides that absolute maximization of engagement is no longer necessary and allows for a more customized algorithm.

98Ag99Grad said:

---

I've never wanted a thread on the golf board locked until now. Someone needs to post some boobs and be done with it.

---

It should be moved to the politics board. It's a discussion about culture, which that forum is full of.

So, just to make this a little relevant, were there many on here that followed GG regularly or bought their merchandise? I don't really follow any YouTube golf content creators like these guys, so that part is a no for me. Their merchandise is not really my style either. But I'm an old guy.