is it wishful thinking, or maybe confirmation bias? or people making stuff up to escape their boring lifes.
or something more sinister.
discuss, and maybe bring some reference footage, proof, whatever.
>>17740516
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wofs8ZpcXlM
for example, does anyone know if this actually aired for real? or if it even could have any effect?
>>17740519
this one has no subliminal text, so it was just edited, maybe different versions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xmcb8TEG6Q
anyone saw it when it went on television that can remember?
>>17740519
>for example, does anyone know if this actually aired for real? or if it even could have any effect?
The Federal Communications Commission will revoke the broadcast license of any company that uses subliminal marketing in its broadcast. It came to this conclusion after many years of research. In 1955, the FCC issued a statement that subliminal marketing was a cause of public concern and that broadcasters should approach the technique cautiously. In 1974 the FCC issued Public Notice FCC 74–78, and an Information Bulletin called "Subliminal Projection," following much investigation into the topic. The FCC stated that all broadcasting licensees should not use subliminal advertising techniques because the techniques are deceptive, which runs counter to the purpose of the FCC. The statement is still on the FCC's website as its stance on subliminal marketing.
>>17740554
well thanks for the reply, it is good to know that in theory they oppose it.
but that wont stop people from potentally trying
also when the main method is to deceive, it would make sense to say they are against it themselves, as a defense from critics.
like oh no it wasnt me, kind of thing.
i dont think that in any way disproves what you said, its just a thought.
its kind of like a thief said he was very opposed to stealing, to make people put their guard down.
though that might be really digging for excuses.
>>17740642
Well they oppose THAT technique. The companies just use different ones. Like "sex wells". Because it's subliminally telling you that product = sex
>>17740682
hm yeah, rather obvious but still no denying its using the viewers lust agaist him.
so they have no problem with using people.
>>17740694
Superliminal, they don't give a shit now, we are going to buy shit anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WTBkj8gFfI
>>17740694
But I'm saying that's one subliminal technique. There are many and multi layered in commercials
>>17740725
more examples?
>>17740516
"cia project mkultra" is confirmed as having happened.. they even apologized for it. the brits have a few that they admitted to and the us goverment has more than mkultra under its belt
obama signed into effect a new wave of that bullshit. it was on the news
>>17740516
I don't care about that shit. I notice some people try to manipulate your mind subtle to bring you down and its some sick shit! Read a book about it that described them as covert aggressives and said most cases of depression are caused by that. Like a parent or something or coworker its some really fucked up shit!
>>17740642
also look at it from a larger perspective. institutions could have been set up for their stated intended purpose and, since 1955 for example, have been corroded or Regulatory Capture can happen of law creep. it's like hackers and a popular website...it's under constant attack.
>>17740814
"obama signed into effect a new wave of that bullshit. it was on the news"
please explain.
>>17740855
i wonder if its just me, but that post was really confusing to read.
im sorry, but i really dont understand this post.
>>17740704
damn, thats pretty catchy.
>>17740682
>Well they oppose THAT technique. The companies just use different ones. Like "sex wells". Because it's subliminally telling you that product = sex
True
