Anti-gay organization NOM is eager to show off their Black supporters:
And here’s where they got them:
Would a historically Democratic voter be so turned off by the candidate being a woman that they would either vote…
-
@Corso going to follow Amp's lead and ignore the attack. But this: Gretchen Whitmer is the governor of Michigan. Michigan’s…
I know I said I'd take a step back, and I fully intended to, and I think I'll just not…
Dianne: "Whereas RFK spending an undisclosed amount of taxpayers’ money to make a video of himself shirtless with Kid Rock…
Remember that the people you’re accusing of sexism were willing to cast Democrat votes, you aren’t talking about hardcore Republicans.…
-
Unlike tight-fisted, money-grubbing pro-SSM organizations, Amp, which demand that their minions serve on demand as unpaid volunteers every time someone needs a graphic, the NOM folks are caring and compassionate and want to help families, who are still underrepresented in the stock photo image. Not only did these freelance photon-reflectors get paid for their time and trouble for the photo shoot, they probably got paid again (assuming that NOM paid Stockphoto.com and didn’t just ninja the file) in royalties.
Why is it that you think black families should work for free so that tree-hugging white liberals can have more money to buy fancy coffees and recreational abortions, Amp? Hmm? Hmm?
@Robert: “recreational abortions”?
You must be kidding.
In response to the post… Really, I don’t see why people are always so dismissive of companies and organizations using stock photos on their websites. Everybody’s doin’ it. If I were designing a website intended to attract viewers, whether to buy a product or sympathize with a cause, I would prefer to take advantage of the photogenic models, flattering lighting, and expert composition of a professional photo shoot than take my own shots of employees or volunteers. At the very least, you save money by not investing in expensive photography equipment for the 10 or 20 images you’d need scattered throughout your marketing campaign, and they’ll probably end up higher quality as well, unless you go all-out and keep your own in-house photography and photoediting department. It’s just good business sense. Which is, of course, exactly why stock photo companies flourish.
It’s more interesting to me that the Human Rights Campaign, for instance, doesn’t appear to do it. From their website, it looks like all the photos they use were taken in the field… except for two suspiciously good-looking men on the Resources page holding a baby against a white background. But if that was taken by a photographer working for another company who supports marriage/adoption equality, I don’t hold that against them. It’s the visual effect on the page that really matters in the end.
Aha, so you cop to the fancy coffees!
Yes, as I hope was massively clear, I was kidding.
You can pry my recreational abortions from someone else’s cold, dead…..
Must he?
nr: man wtf did you link to?
Sorry, Robert. I think my sarcasm detector was broken when I read your post originally. Or is this an instance of the dreaded Poe’s Law striking again?
Excessive consumption of fancy coffee has been shown to correlate strongly to inability to parse sarcasm in 84% of liberal elite cohorts.
Left unaddressed is the question of why Amp hates black stock photo models and wants them all to starve.
Given all the underhanded crap NOM pulls (along with blatent lies and distortion) using a stock photo hardly seems all that noteworthy. And I’m sure pro-LGBTQ orgs are not unfamiliar with themselves with such a practice…
-Jeremy