Using the excuse of tax money is weak because there are plenty of causes that tax money goes to that you would find to be subjectively "complete waste of time and energy". You don't get to be selective with what your tax goes to.
I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. My point is that I showed how "banning Photoshop" as a policy would not be very effective. If a policy is not effective, than it is not a subjective waste of money, it is an objective one. I don't get to select where my tax money goes to directly, but that's missing the point.
You know exactly well that the discussion is about photoshopping bodies, not the actual software.
Not I don't. It's very hard to separate the two. That is why I ALSO framed the argument in terms of banning "digital manipulation of bodies" (AKA "photoshopping bodies") and why that would be useless. Read that part again if you missed it.
Makeup and lighting wouldn't fall into false advertising because those are tools people can use and regularly do. That is why Youtube makeup videos are such a big thing.
Photoshop is
also a "tool that people use and regularly do [use]". You can do a lot of the same body manipulation/beauty enhancing effects with either makeup or Photoshop. This is how ads were done back in the day. It's just a lot easier to fix stuff in post now, so the makeup part isn't as critical as it used to be. If you ban Photoshopping bodies, you'll just make production invest more on the makeup side of things.
Using the argument of social media is a bit disingenuous. Those people's fit bodies aren't forced on you, you create your own social media feed. If you go on Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook, you're curating the people you want to follow, so there's a very low chance that you're going to be aggressively jealous because it was your active participation in following that fit person's profile. Unless if you're some sort of masochist.
It is not disingenuous. I guess most of us as masochists, then.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29569473
Dr Phillippa Diedrichs, senior research fellow at the University of West of England's Centre for Appearance Research, says research backs up the link between social media and body image concerns.
"The more time spent on Facebook, the more likely people are to self-objectify themselves," she says.
She explains there is a tendency to seek out negative social interactions in these forums, and to ask people to comment on how you look, which can lead to body image anxieties.
You're making out banning the use of photoshop on bodies to be rocket science just because it's subjective
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
or to be a huge waste of funding when it really wouldn't.
I explained how banning digital manipulation of bodies wouldn't do jack crap about hindering a photographer's ability to make people look hot. Thus, a waste of money.
False advertising tends to be much stricter here in UK than other countries. We've seen when videogame/tech ads have been taken down or have to put disclaimers that the game footage is not representative or is, or whether a company is touting features that the device can't do. This isn't that far a stretch. This is still just hypothetical speculation so a more fruitful discussion might come about if it ever is sought after by the gov't.
Those are pretty cut and dry cases. What
exactly, is being
falsified by having a hot human advertise a product? I can see how it can potentially contribute to feelings of negative body image, but what is "false" about this advertising?
Take the "are you beach body ready?" ad, which most of this controversy was generated from.
Put yourself in the shoes of the person in charge of constructing the ad. What particular Photoshop functions are you going to prohibit the use of? That girl
actually looks like that.
