What the hell are you doing punk?!
Just eating some low-fat yogurt officer
Subject has a deadly weapon send backup NOW!
Sir it’s just yogu-
Don’t play games with me!
I swear I’m just watching my weight!
You have 3 seconds!
3!
This is ridiculous bro
2!
It’s good for you
1!
It keeps me regular!
*gunshots*
Deadly threat down.
The Super Bowl had 102 million total viewers this year. For this reason, big companies go all out and spend big bucks on advertisements that will capture the attention of the viewers, make them laugh, make them cry, but at the end of the day they want to draw your business toward their company. I thought the following three Super Bowl ads did a great job of pulling in the viewership through humor.
We live in a time of rapid technological development. Much of the technology we develop is beneficial, like video editing technology, when used for entertainment purposes. However, video editing technology has moved away from the Hollywood big screen and is now available to anybody that wants it. This has led to some bad eggs who unfortunately have crossed the line, using video editing technology to digitally edit the voices and faces of celebrities or people of power, making them appear to say or do embarrassing or incriminating things.
The video above is a funny, yet frightening reminder of how far technology has come in terms of distorting video to make it look like a different person is saying something. Pacino and Schwarzenegger’s faces edited onto Bill Hader’s body, accompanied with his spot-on impressions make it appear that Bill is actually Arnold or Pacino. If this is possible to do with celebrities as a lighthearted joke, then the same technology can be used to make a political candidate appear to say or do something that would damage their reputation beyond repair. In today’s cancel culture where one side is constantly looking for dirt on the other side, this could be very dangerous as elections could be impacted.
Greta Thunberg has recently been known as the champion of international climate activism. At just 16 years old, Greta has appeared publicly to give speeches to audiences of thousands, even millions, through her numerous appearances on TV. The question I have is this: where is all this anger coming from? At 16 years old, most girls are hanging out with friends, going to school everyday, and generally staying out of any media spotlight. Meanwhile, Greta is chastising the entire planet about pollution and habitat destruction.
Very few girls Greta’s age are as militant about putting an end to climate change, so why all the anger? Some say that as a young person, this issue will inevitably affect her directly as evidence shows effects from climate change progressing rapidly in the next 50 years. But it is interesting that climate activists chose a child to be their champion in the first place. Obviously a scientist with multiple degrees and years of extensive research may seem like a more credible source of information for climate change.
The point I am making is this: the climate activist movement grounds too many of their arguments in emotion. This is not me saying I do not believe in climate change, however, climate activists and the left in general like to drum up emotion and leave facts aside. I don’t want a 16 year old yelling at me to change my ways when I am thinking to myself, “did this girl even learn basic geometry yet?” Give me a climate scientist with years of credible research who is going to give me hard facts and an agenda for exactly what we need to do. This ploy of using a little girl to get me emotional and wanting to do something isn’t going to work.
Noice
Cooney's Collection