Probably not, if you shoot a man, there's a perpetrator and an end. If you brainwash a man, forever his actions will no longer be fully his own. Plus most people view violence as something undesirable (see Vietnam war protests), but advertising still has many hawks who will never stop singing it's praises while all public spaces are consumed by corporate branding until we have no where uninfected

> if you shoot a man, there's a perpetrator and an end

I don’t know about this assertion. It does not ring true to real life for me.

I'd say the state of "forever his actions will no longer be fully his own" is easier to reach with doomsday weapons than with ads.

Is the claim here that working in the advertising industry is worse than working on “doomsday devices to incinerate all life on Earth”? What a hot take!

Is it? Would you rather be dead or a zombie?

Would I rather be dead or use TikTok? Come on now, you know the answer to that.

Dead.

"Better to Die on Your Feet Than Live on Your Knees" as they say.

I'd rather have the choice to do whatever I want with my life instead of a bomb dropped on my head.

Nuclear weapons have killed about ~200k people in all of history.

Advertising probably kills that many people most months when you consider things like:

* Convincing people that various groups needs to be genocided

* Convincing people to use cars instead of less dangerous methods of transportation

* Convincing people to use fossil fuels instead of less polluting forms of energy

* Convincing people to eat unhealthy foods

* Convincing people to smoke cigarettes

I'm not convinced that advertising is less dangerous than nuclear weapons.

> Nuclear weapons have killed about ~200k people in all of history.

So far. Present performance is not indicative of future returns. All it will take is one nut job (who could still be Putin depending on how this turns out) escalating to even a "regional" nuclear war to add a zero or two to that number, and it could happen very quickly.