By now, I am sure you have seen the Gillette toxic masculinity ad about 65,000 times, but I will post it here in case you somehow haven't seen the actual ad for yourself. I suggest watching it before moving forward to the article. This is from The Guardian's YouTube channel, as you can tell by their weird branding on the video as if they own it or something. 

So, now that you've seen it, odds are, you have an opinion on it. Either you think this is the greatest ad ever made and everything in it is a solid truth and showcases the issues with toxic masculinity in society that it is beyond time that we highlight and discuss so we can change it, or you stopped reading this article to set fire to anything made by Gillette and are screaming about how not all men are rapists and this advertisement was sexist. 

And... you're both wrong!

​Let me explain. I don't hate the ad, but not for the reasons you are thinking. I actually kind of like it. Not because it is showcasing toxic masculinity, but it is a subtle nod to the beauty of capitalism. As this tweet so eloquently puts it:

And that is exactly what is going on here. Regardless of what you think about the people this ad was meant to entice, this is general thought process of Gillette.

1. Older men are most likely not going to switch brands. They've been using this razor for 20 years, it works, they are going to keep using it. They may never even see the ad. If they do boycott, it will be short lived, because we can do something later this year to make them feel good and come back.
2. The younger generations are still trying to find a razor that works for them, and these kids either shave nothing or everything. 

I've heard all the comments about feminists who don't shave, but the fact of the matter is... the vast majority of women still shave everything from the chin down. Feminist or not. And even if they don't, Gillette sells more than razors. 

Here's the story, though. Right now, we live in a nation that is heavily polarized along the lines of social issues. We're obsessed with them. Some companies, like Ben and Jerry's, are using the sale of their product to fund their activism. We know that. We also see the irony in them using capitalism to fund their desire for socialism. 

They also know that people over a certain age know that boycotts can be fairly useless in the long run and won't take part, because, after all, if you boycott everyone with different opinions from yourself you are left with very little to fill your needs. And, let's face it... most of these companies are giving their money to both sides. The payout goes to who does the most for them. And they pay everyone to get what they want done. Boycotting can be so fickle. They say one thing one day and this side boycotts, and next week they say something else and the boycott stops but now the other side is boycotting... but both sides have no purchased their products regardless. And memories are so short that the boycotts will end on both sides in a few months when they have a fantastic sale.

​The younger folks are so wrapped in what they believe that it consumes their lives. Therefore, shave or not, they are going to go out and buy the heck out of their products to counter act the boycott from the people who didn't like the ad and to show support for their beliefs being justified by a corporation. 

Do you see something missing from this thought process? No?

What's missing is the actual giving a crap. These corporations are selling a product. They don't give a rat's patoot about social issues. You can tell the ones who do - like the aforementioned Ben and Jerry's who doesn't care if their brand goes down the toilet as long as they can ironically fight for socialism for a little while with the profits - but 99% of them don't.

The ad is too long to run on TV, at least in it's entirety. They put this ad up online. And now... everyone is talking about it. It doesn't need to go on TV. Mission accomplished. They've already made back the money the spent making the ad with all this free advertising. It's been discussed on the news. It's all over YouTube. It was trending on Facebook and Twitter. And every time someone mentions it they call it "the Gillette ad." Their name is out there. And they didn't have to spend money on advertising.

It's the latest marketing ploy. Make an ad that is politically charged and everyone will talk about it for weeks, everyone will play the ad all over the place, there will be boycotts and runs alike on the product, etc. This is big, hot news!

This is capitalism, baby!

Sure, the message wasn't great since it demonizes men and plays into a narrative that is dangerous. But that's the point! If it didn't, it wouldn't be getting talked about endlessly! And the topic has to be polarizing but not hideous. This marketing strategy wouldn't work if they, say, made an ad ridiculing various races or religions. That's something the left and the right would get behind in boycotting. No, they have to play the sides against each other, because the sides have been getting played against each other in the political sphere something hard for a decade or more now. NOW they can make money on it. 

So yes, these corporations are going to pretend - and they are pretending - to give a crap about these issues to cause the endless analysis, social media trending, buying frenzy to counter act boycotts, etc., because it does cause people to go out and aim right for their product. And since it was an issue the left cares about... the right will boycott and the left will over buy in support to make up for that boycott. Plus, aiming to please the left works better since the left tends more towards hard boycotts, violent protests, or complete buying frenzies than the right is. We wouldn't want Antifa burning down the factory now, would we? No. But we do want them going out and buying everything they see with the Gillette brand on it, which they will, especially if they are under 25. So they're pretending to care about this issue to capitalize off of socialists who don't make the connection that they are proving capitalism works... because this is pure capitalistic marketing and they don't see it. Now, in a few months, Gillette will probably do something that supports the troops or something like that, because that will bring the right back off their boycott and they'll buy because Gillette supports the troops. It will spark a small boycott by the left, but not one big enough to notice. And that's how you create a profit in 2019!

This is going to be a new series here since memes seem to be such a huge part of culture these days. You aren't always going to like what I have to say! This is me keeping myself and you humble and non-hypocritical. Some will be explanations of memes some may not understand. Some will be a reality check. Etc. You'll see what comes as the memes come in. If you'd like to see one included in this series, feel free to pass it on. 

So, let's start with one I posted for laughs on Instagram and started a huge and unexpected manure storm with.

Let me just say two things. 1. If you aren't 100% sure of what a meme means, don't try to explain to others 2. If you don't get the joke, I'm not going to explain it... most of the time. It loses the humor if I have to explain it, and frankly... if you don't get it, it wasn't meant for you. 

The crap storm came when someone decided they got it, explained it to others, and then got mad when he found out he was completely wrong. Because he was being a turd from the get go, I absolutely refused to explain it to him and he just got angrier and angrier until he finally told me that obviously no one else got it, either, since he had to "explain" it to two other people. I ended the conversation by pointing out that, at that moment, close to 400 people had gotten the joke. 

I suspect most of you get the joke. If you've spent any amount of time in a gun store or at gun shows, you have heard some variation of this joke. Basically, "Oh, I don't own any guns. I lost them all in a horrible boating accident." That's it. It's a joke based on the idea that second amendment supporters aren't going to register or turn in their weapons, choosing to instead claim their firearms vanished in a pretty much unproveable manner. They can't prove you didn't and you can't prove you did. It's not serious at all, it is just a light hearted inside joke that you only get if you are part of the gun scene and are completely outraged by if you aren't. Having worked in a gun store for seven years, I've heard tons of variants on this joke. 

Here's one you're not going to like! This meme rubs me the wrong way. Why? Obama. 

How many people posting this meme were disrespectful to Obama? No, I didn't like him, either. But the same people claiming this is treason when done to Trump did it to Obama. And they didn't "respect the office of the president" when he was in office. Granted, the same people who were screaming you should "respect the office of the president" under Obama are currently not doing so with Trump, but I digress. 

I remember the conservatives claiming he wasn't their president. I remember the name calling and calls to ignore laws they didn't like and all of that. The left does some pretty strange stuff when it comes to Trump. But the right had some Obama Derangement Syndrome, too. 

Bumper stickers with Obama's face on them saying things like, "Does this ass make my truck look big?" "Nope" instead of "Hope." And the birth certificate. All the way up until Trump's inauguration we heard about the birth certificate. And at least three different names Obama apparently had gone by, complete with IDs listed as "proof" that no one wanted to admit were really bad photoshop jobs. There's one still going around about Michelle Obama claiming her name was originally Michael with a short haired photo of her, and the photoshop job is so bad it is actually laughable. But people are passing it around like it's real! 

And yes, I heard people say flat out that they hoped Obama failed. Even Rush Limbaugh said it on his show. I didn't hope Obama failed. Why? Because if the president fails, the country fails, and I don't dislike any president enough to want to watch the country fall down around our ears just for the pleasure of watching that person fail. Blindly following, of course, is no better. 

The bottom line is this. Mocking the president is not treason. Treason is a serious allegation. And it has lost all meaning in the last 15 to 20 years. Conspiracy theories are not treason, either. Both sides have them. Russia collusion... they are sure it happened and it will be proven any day now. But the right had the birth certificate... which they were sure was real and would be proven any day now. Both sides think their conspiracy theory will lead to the removal of the president they don't like. 

​Every president since Washington had nay sayers, conspiracy theories, snowflakes, haters, etc. It's a great way to relieve stress when someone is in office that you don't like, doing things that you don't like. But it's not treason. Aside from that, all of these presidents - including Obama and Trump - had die hards that were convinced they could do no wrong and lashed out at anyone who had anything negative at all to say about their president. I know for certain that some of those people haven't made it this far. They've already gotten angry that I've said something that was not in high praise of Trump and have vowed to never return here. Sorry. I'm not a blind follower. I voted for Trump. He's done some good, he's done some bad. Just like Obama. Patriotism is being able to see that. 

This one started flying around when it was decided that the officer that cowered outside of Marjory Stoneman Douglas during the shooting didn't have the responsibility to protect the kids. 

The ruling was based on case law, and in this case, they based it off of the Supreme Court ruling that the police do not have the responsibility to protect the citizens. There's been a lot of debate since this officer was a school resource officer and he was hired to do just that. But... he wasn't. He should have tried. But he wasn't required to, and can't be held liable for not doing so. 

There's arguments all around, but logic comes into play in this case and the Supreme Court ruling. If these cases were not found this way, any time a person was robbed, raped, murdered, assaulted, etc., the victim or their family could sue the police for not being there to stop the crime. The cops can't be there if no one calls. But if the SCOTUS had found they did have the responsibility of protecting the citizens, victims would constantly be suing the cops because they were victims, and they'd win, causing our taxes to go sky high because the payouts have to come from somewhere. 

Let's take this school resource officer and break it down. Let's assume he wasn't a coward, and let's assume he was trying to stop the shooter. 

1. Let's say he was at the front entrance, trying to prevent people from coming in. The shooter knows this and comes in through a window or fire door at the other end of the building. He starts shooting. The school resource officer starts running towards the gunfire and arrives, shooting the killer dead. But before he got there, the shooter had already killed the students. If the court ruled he was responsible for their safety, the parents of those students could sue him, the school, and the police department. 

2. Let's say the school resource officer was doing his rounds inside the building and saw the shooter enter with a gun. He immediately tries to disarm the shooter, but the gun goes off in the scuffle and kills a student. The parents could sue him, the school, and the police department. 

3. Let's say the school resource officer was doing his rounds insides the building and saw the shooter enter with a gun. He immediately pulls his own pistol and begins shooting, but the killer runs down a side hall. While trying to hit a moving target, the cop shoots through a door and hits the teacher. While the killer is running, he starts randomly firing at all the doors he runs past while being chased, and manages to kill several students and teachers. The parents and families could sue him, the school, and the police department.

I could come up with a ton of scenarios here, but you get the point. The cops and the school resource officer can't be everywhere at once. It is physically impossible for them to protect everyone in every scenario. The ruling in both of these cases was actually necessary to prevent victims and families from suing the police department out of existence and raising taxes to astronomical levels to cover all the payouts. 

Your safety is your responsibility. Which is something those who are pro-second amendment grasp. It's part of the reason we are pro-second amendment.