Comment Of The Day: “More Culturally Subversive TV Advertising: FarmersOnly.Com’s Bigotry”

Shutup, in contrast, DOES get it, whatever it is...

Shutup, in contrast, DOES get it, whatever it is…

A delightfully articulate and analytical reader with the intriguing name“Shutup” sent along today’s Comment of the Day, on the post on the Farmers Only.Com ads, which encourage the bigotry and divisiveness we are increasingly seeing in our country. In his trenchant commentary, reminiscent of Shaw or Mencken, he interestingly labels your humble host a “libtard,” and perhaps as a result, seems to misunderstand the purpose of an ethics blog. For Ethics Alarms never tells anyone what to do; it just explains what one’s ethics are when one does it, and why it may not be wise.

I also offer the comment, which is of the stripe that usually does not make it out of moderation, console disconsolate Hillary fans that the sightings of free range deplorables may be more than mere rumor after all.

Here is Shutup’s Comment of the Day on the post, “More Culturally Subversive TV Advertising: FarmersOnly.Com’s Bigotry”

We will not be hearing from him again.

And welcome to my world…

Shut up you filthy, useless libtard urban b***. Don’t tell other people what to do, whom to date, what to say, hateful liberal fascist commit twit. Shut your trap. In person, little coward like you wouldn’t even open up that hole to run your hate, cause ya know what comes next.


Note: Anyone who has any guesses as to what b*** means, please pass them along. I’m stumped.

60 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “More Culturally Subversive TV Advertising: FarmersOnly.Com’s Bigotry”

  1. Only 251 options….I think we can figure this out…

    baal baas baba babe babu baby bach back bade bads baff bags baht bail bait bake bald bale balk ball balm bals bams band bane bang bani bank bans baps barb bard bare barf bark barm barn bars base bash bask bass bast bate bath bats batt baud bawd bawl bays bead beak beam bean bear beat beau beck beds bedu beef been beep beer bees beet begs bell bels belt bema bend bene bens bent berg berm best beta beth bets bevy beys bhut bias bibb bibs bice bide bids bier biff bigs bike bile bilk bill bima bind bine bins bint bios bird birk birl birr bise bisk bite bits bitt bize blab blae blah blam blat blaw bleb bled blet blew blin blip blob bloc blot blow blub blue blur boar boas boat bobs bock bode bods body boff bogs bogy boil bola bold bole boll bolo bolt bomb bond bone bong bonk bony boob book boom boon boor boos boot bops bora bore born bort bosh bosk boss bota both bots bott bout bowl bows boxy boyo boys bozo brad brae brag bran bras brat braw bray bred bree bren brew brie brig brim brin brio bris brit broo bros brow brrr brut bubo bubs buck buds buff bugs buhl buhr bulb bulk bull bumf bump bums bund bung bunk bunn buns bunt buoy bura burd burg burl burn burp burr burs bury bush busk buss bust busy bute buts butt buys buzz byes byre byrl byte

  2. I think he meant something else, and on top of being stupid, he can’t count. More than likely there should be four stars and not three stars.

    • I am thinking bitch since he is basically saying Jack is weak and cowardly. Funny since he is posting anonymously and Jack isn’t.

  3. “Urban libtard”? He’s gotta be kidding…everybody knows you’re a raving NeoCon (whatever that is). Seriously, I don’t have a clue what your political leanings are, but as near as I can tell, you’re about as middle-of-the-road as they come, and if you’re not, 1) You’re damn good at covering whatever your brand of politics are and 2) I don’t WANT to know. I’m getting too much from you about ethics to want to argue politics.

  4. He does not necessarily represent the views of most rural Americans.

    With that said, when I grew up I always heard about having things in common is necessary for a quality relationship. In fact, most of the mainstream psychology based matchmaking services strive to achievejust that. The idea of a Farmers Only site seems sophomoric because it limits opportunities for people to engage others. However, self-selection is not a new concept in societal choices. I don’t see it as bigoted per se but a low tech way for people to actually self select and differentiate among the myriad choices of potential partners who advertise availability online. I see little difference between this and or sites promoting relationships with asian women. The problem with all these sites treat people as chattle on the auction block.

  5. Regardless of his IQ, this is a scary guy. Even assuming people like him are in fact all talk and no action, are you sure you want your personal contact information available on the blog? I’m willing for you to have my e-mail address, but not everyone else…

    And if it isn’t a farmer next time, maybe it’ll be some insane Hillary-ite. Never know.

  6. Golly, Jack:

    If this is all it takes to get a comment of the day, I can come up with something far more inane and vulgar than that …

    Now, listen here you **********, your ideas are so ******** ****** that it makes me think your mother must have been a ************. If I ever meet you in person, I’m going to ************** you with ******** and then grab your ******** and *********** until you scream ****************!

    It’s like Madlibs.

    In all seriousness, however, I hope you’re well!

  7. I have seen advertisements for Christian matchmaking sites, blacks and LBGT so I don’t believe having one for folks who know they want a country loving mate is so bad, After all, there are a lot of city folks that would love to live in the county. I know. I married one. I was a country girl and he was a city boy. Of course that was 50 years ago long before you went on the internet hunting true love.

    • Did you bother to read the original post about the website? Apparently not. It doesn’t say there is anything wrong with “folks who know they want a country loving mate.”

      The post in question says specifically:

      That’s not the message FarmersOnly is sending. It’s telling the country that “city folk” are rude morons; we’re invited to cheer as the good, competent country folk strand them in lakes and splash mud on their faces. In the last two, the “heroes” behave disgracefully, but because their victims are presented as worthy of hate, it’s acceptable…. you know, like the Nazis harassing all those greedy Jews on Kristallnacht. “Sign up for free to find a farmer, rancher, cowboy, cowgirl or animal lover here at, an online dating site meant for down to earth folks only,” the site says. “City folk just don’t get it.” Translation: “We know we’re better than them.” This is the essence of prejudice.

      You know, in the Comment policies, which was just revised, I keep forgetting to write, “And read the $%%^&&^# pots you are commenting on.” Seems rather obvious to me.

  8. Ahh, but is it ethical to repost ‘comment of the day’ as is, without anything to that indicates the purpose is for the betterment of either the readers or the author? As it it stands, it’s just you making a public statement that comments that fail to reach a certain standard usually won’t be published unless they manage to cross the line of decency to the point where they are especially base and deplorable. Which then begs the question, is it ethical to bait these kind of people to attack you with even more vitriol in the hope that their comment will bypass the ‘Recycle Bin’ and get a blog post all of its own?

    As for the content of the comment, I’m not really sure it’s worthy of ethics debate. Unless we really want to rehash what’s already been said about the internet and the poor choices people make when offered the cloak of anonymity.

    Maybe there is one about the freedom of speech in the context of a right of reply. Then we do have the issue that, until published, the comment could be regarded as a private conversation, despite whatever hopes the author held of getting it published. But again, in regards to the author of the comment, it’s the same ethics fail in terms of behaving badly due to the protective element of anonymity. Ermm, how about free speech isn’t just being able to disengage one’s brain, open one’s mouth and let the verbal diarrhoa flow in a great torrent?

    Incidently, while it’s obvious that the modern school system perhaps failed the author of the comment, ‘bawd’ is an old (probably outdated) slang term for a woman who ran a low-class brothel… Pity the classics are deemed to hard and dificult for today’s english speakers to be taught in school.

    • Well, if I were going to pick a comment to illustrate a desperate effort at a “gotcha” that fails miserably, I’d pick your comment. Is it unethical to publish as Comment of the Day one that usually wouldn’t be published at all, since it violated about 8 of the stated requirements in the Comment Policies? That’s known as a “gift.” Normally the hard work and quality thought he put into his masterpiece would go for naught, a small tragedy for him, I’m sure. (He also didn’t have a real e-mail address or leave his real name, major problems both.)

      Moral instruction was far from my mind: I assumed it was obvious why I picked that one. 1. It called me a libtard,which is a hoot 2) it allowed a revisit to the post. The site has stopped running the offensive ads. Maybe someone paid attention. 3) it was more interesting than the usual hate mail I get and 4) the word puzzle.

      Obviously the writer consented to publication and accepted the risk of my response. As for a reply: he’s welcome to try. I didn’t spam him (yet).

      • They’re still running the same anti city slicker campaign. Saw one just the other day. Different ad but just as preposterous as the previous ones in the series.

      • No, my comment wasn’t a desperate attempt at a ‘gotcha’. I really don’t get the criteria that makes one more piece of hate-mail suitable for publication, when you have a policy in place that sets out hte ground rules for publication…

        I did touch on right of reply which I presumed was going to be read as your right of reply. I percieve your actions as being those of somebody who’s had a nerve touched. In that case, comment auther has achieved their aim to have you become emotionally invested in their banal comment. Given that the author seems to lack critical thinking skills, thus is unable to seperate the emotional from the rational argument, any further discussion with them is essentially going to be the proverbial taking on an idiot on their terms.

        As for a revisit, personally I found it detracted from the original post about the ‘Farmer’s Only’ ads, rather than bring more to the table. But then again, ethics in advertising seems to be as much a joke as ethics in the media, amongst politicians or lawyers.

        • Well, when you have your own blog, be sure to pick your comments of the day differently. The comment certainly touched no nerve; I really thought it was funny. I also periodically like to highlight the problem of people writing comments that don’t involve actually reading the post. As for obnoxious comments as CsOTD, this isn’t the first time I have posted them, and won’t be the last.

    • I think the “bait” accusation is unfair. In what way did Jack “bait” anyone into responding this way?

      There are a few times Jack has caused me to pause and realize I wasn’t in the right. I’m someone who’s chosen to live in the boonies so I’m inclined towards finding them a bit funny. I thought the fishing one and the horse one was a bit funny, although the mud truck one was too much for me. I can’t fault Jack for his analysis; he’s right here. He didn’t mock or insult anyone, he’s just advocating that the specific conduct is unethical.

      • No accusation. I suppose ‘feeding the trolls’ might have also been as appropriate. Problem is that by showing an example of what touches a nerve enough to get the attention they crave is that it does set a baseline to work from in order to be singled out and given attention.

        Where I see unintentional murky ethics is in the way in which Jack worded his post. It came across as more rally the troops to the wounded, rather than stick to the argument. To me, it does look like a nerve was hit and the post was born more out of an emotional response to a random stranger’s unkind words than one that was going to drive discussion on how Farmer’s Only owns a stake in the actions of said individual.

        That said, the goal of modern advertising is to secure an emotional attachment from the consumer, rather than provide them information to make an informed choice. Love, and by extension lonliness, is one of those that seems to be particularly effective at getting people to bypass all common sense and surrender their credit card details for all manner of dubious goods and services… Ethical advertising is an oxymoron.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.