soooo today i learned that back in the early 90s, coca cola tried making this thing called “ok soda” as a marketing stunt to beat out pepsi since they had way more of a hold on the “younger/rebellious” generation at the time, and their way of doing that was naming it “ok soda” so that they could copyright the word “ok”, the most popular word in the world, and at the same time brand it as an…ironic soda??? like the whole thing with it was that they tried to brand ok soda as a counterculture soda but instead of making it about typical 90s RADICAL EXTREME!!! fodder the theme of it was uh. unsettlingcapitalist brutalist dystopia. instead of being bright and colorful the color scheme was only stark whites, grays and reds and the cans looked like this. bold shapes and labels stating ominous, robotic things with a figure always staring dead into you on the front, no coca cola branding on it at all.
sometimes there would be “prize cans” of this stuff where instead of having soda inside it there would be hats. and they didn’t sell this option in boxes by the way they just put prize cans in random vending machines. and put like 25 cents in it so hey. you could get an actual soda that isn’t just hats. maybe.
did i mention that this soda also had a fucking MANIFESTO??? because yeah it sure had that printed on some cans and it goes as follows
and there’s these things called “coincidences”, which… yeah it doesn’t make it sound any less ominous
and you might be wondering how the soda itself tastes like does it taste good? ok? well apparently it was just a regular “citric” tasting soda but somehow they fucked it up so bad that it was compared to “carbonated tree sap”, and instead of trying to make the drink taste better they included that it tasted like shit, INTO THE ADVERTISING SCHEME ITSELF. they would literally advertise that it tasted like ass as a part of the ironic marketing, no i am not kidding.
but if you thought that’s where it ended there’s one more curveball and without any exaggeration, you will not expect what i am about to tell you.
take a look at this guy.
this guy is the “face” of ok soda, as in he was printed on the most cans and technically served as a mascot of sorts for the entire thing. his face was a major part of the branding, and this design for the cans was one of if not the most common.
okay. cool. no issue there right?
take a guess on who this guy is based off of.
the artist’s coworker? a generic guy? the artist himself? a relative? some random reference model they hired?
CHARLES MANSON. YES, THIS IS REAL. MEANING FOR A BRIEF MOMENT IN TIME, CHARLES MANSON’S FACE WAS USED AS A MEANS TO SELL COCA COLA.
the lead artist himself has even come forward to say this is the case. and now you may be asking wait. how’d he do this? how’d he possibly get away with this, years after the crimes had been committed?
well according to him, it was simple. apparently none of the contracts he signed said anything against putting a mass murderer on the can. so. there’s THAT.
unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you look at it, ok soda never really caught on since *surprise surprise!* teens really don’t want to buy soda that looks like a brutalist art museum, and it never had a wide release so it was only a thing for like two years between 1993 and 1995. but from what i’ve heard there’s still people who are giving this soda a small modern following, collecting all the cans and merchandise and even coming up with stand in recipes for the soda formula itself.
so yeah! that was ok soda.
what the fuck
There’s things you learn on this site that just stay with you. You know?
‘98 Darts World Championship. Only 4 countries competing, and all 8 of the top ranked players were English. Not exactly a “world” game
Khingila the First. Founding king of Hunnic Alkhan Dynasty. Seems like a cool guy with ego so inflated it spans the Eurasian steppe, but eh can’t do worse than Genghis Khan amirite?
Trying to finish this book, doing a presentation as a part of a class (as I have done at least once every week since the AY started), re-writing my notes….. October, where the f have you disappeared?!
17th-18th October 2017 - 16-17/100 Days of productivity Enjoying the weather, I had a presentation on clergy in 15th-17th century Lands of the Bohemian Crown. Oh and my paleography “colouring book” :D
7th-9th October 2017 (6-8/100 Days of productivity)
Turns out working while studying is actually a good idea for me. At least my head feels less like it’s gonna explode with worries after two days at work. I spent the entire weekend reading as well, so I have managed to make some progress with the first book. Here’s to the second week of the academic year =)
5th-6th October 2017, 4-5/100 Days of productivity
re-writing notes, reading and taking notes… I decided to still work Friday and Saturday and it is not easy to do both work and school, but it keeps my school-related stress at bay so there’s that :)
2nd-3rd October 2017 (1-2/100 days of productivity)
Autumn is here and the academic year started. I am really happy to be back at school, even though I am a bit worried about burning out again. I have gone back to re-writing notes and that is mainly what I do these days as it helps me digest everything, but I’ve also picked up books for the next few weeks… Assigned reading has no chill…
(I know this question makes zero sense from a theological standpoint but hear me out, I swear it’s interesting)
In the times of Jesus, there were many Jewish prophets wandering the land. They managed to accumulate a following by performing miracles and preaching. These movements were based on the charisma of the leader, and so, when the leader died, the movement usually dissolved on its own.
A few years after starting his predication, Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified: it was the humiliating death of a criminal accused of rebellion. This would have been interpreted by many as a definite proof that Jesus was not, in fact, sent by God.
At this point, belief in Christ would have been very likely to disappear. But it didn’t. In the contrary, faith in Jesus grew (to about 7500 followers at the end of the 1st century).
So,why didn’t belief in Jesus disappear after Jesus’ death ?
- Jesus had recruted a group of close disciples, heavily motivated to spread his message, who were extremely intelligent and competent. Even after his death, they kept on preaching and recruted more believers.
- His death didn’t necessarily render his message obsolete. Many Jewish prophets preached the victory of a certain rebellion for example. When the rebellion was crushed by the Roman army, their message was evidently obsolete. Jesus didn’t preach political rebellion, but forgiveness and the imminent end of times. After his death, his followers could argue that his death was necessary (as prophesied in Jewish scriptures) and that his message of forgiveness remained valid until the end of times.
-A progressive opening firstly towards Hellenic Jews (Jews of the Diaspora, who didn’t live in Israel but in other countries around the Mediterranean world, and spoke Greek as their primary language)
-An even more radical opening towards Gentiles - non-Jews - who were thought by some (but not all) to be included in Jesus’ message
- The very tense alliance of two very distinct groups inside early Christianity: people who believed that only those following the Law of Moses could benefit from the forgiveness that Jesus promised, and those who believed that his message was also directed towards the Gentiles, who should not be asked to follow the Law upon conversion
This alliance was to be fundamental to Christianity’s success: thanks to this alliance, early Christianity didn’t cut ties with Judaism (and therefore benefitted from the legitimating influence of Jewish scriptures) while making itself incredibly more attractive to Gentiles (who didn’t have to follow the Law - and therefore didn’t have to completely abandon their previous social relationships due to Judaism’s heavy standards on purity).
- They managed to surmount the disappointment of the end of times not arriving. Complex phenomenon, but basically, the imminence of the Kingdom of God - a very important theme in the teaching of Jesus and the early Apostles - was progressively “spiritualised”, turned into metaphor of earthly spiritual life. The Kingdom of God wasn’t coming, so each and everyone had to enter the Kingdom of God on Earth, by converting and participating in the Church.
-The progressive marginalisation of heterodox groups challenging the authority of the proto-orthodoxy. Marcionites, Gnostics, and Montanists eventually saw their influence decline and eventually disappeared, not really because they lost on the theological side, but because their theological positions often inevitably lead them to marginalisation. For example, some Gnostics refused to have children, so no more of the divine being would be trapped in physical matter. Marcionites actively condemned Jewish scriptures, the Law of Moses and many texts which were very respected at the time, including many of the texts which would later be part of the official canon.
-The progressive rise of mono-bishops. Churches originally controlled by assemblies of important men of the community tended more and more to be controlled by only one bishop. This man had the authority to impose orthodoxy and turn belief in Jesus away from charismatic preaching into institutions that were made to last.
-The constitution of a canon of recognized texts, which became the New Testament. This wasn’t a simple process. Many different texts, and therefore many different “memories” of Jesus were excluded by this canon. Therefore, the image given of Jesus in the New Testament is far from being simple and univocal: for example, Matthew’s Jesus strongly advocates for strict adherence to the Law, while Paul’s Jesus considered that strict adherence to the Law was useless, and that it never granted anybody salvation. Still, early Church theologians, most notably Irénée de Lyon, worked to reconcile these texts, and managed to create a somewhat coherent picture of Jesus and his message - therefore setting down the basis for Christianity.
Source: Enrico Norelli, La nascità del cristianesimo, Bologna, 2014
The earliest depiction of the Crucifixion, a 2nd century graffiti meant as an insult towards Christians.The Greek text reads “Alexamenos worships God”.
