I disagree, but I'm willing to accept it as my hangup. It's potentially problematic, but I feel a strong hatred towards being manipulated into buying something. I feel that way about this product, and am actively choosing to never consider giving them money because of that.

If it weren't a catalytic converter protector, maybe I'd give them more consideration, but seeing as how this is literally a strip of conductive material that sets off an alarm if it's cut as compared to beefier metal options that will physically delay and deter thieves, and I don't live in an area with really much of any rate of catalytic converter theft, and I don't like what I've perceived to be a scummy marketing tactic, I'm out.

I'll clarify my own take separate from the discussion of the original subreddit: I don't think an advertising person posted this to Lemmy, I think an advertising person made the original photo, shared it on probably Facebook, got enough organic interaction for other people to start sharing it with good intentions and without much thought as to whether it actually happened or not, and OP saw and posted it here after it filtered out to the wider internet.

I can see how someone would say that what I described is brainwashing with extra steps, but I think of it more as an exploitation by marketers who know that people don't usually expend more critical thinking on ultimately harmless pictures shared online.

I dunno, it's a hard thing to be militant about, because it's always a personal read.

When I was working for a summer camp watching over preteens, they had a game night in the cabin with Apples to Apples (a Cards Against Humanity for kids (which I believe predates CAH but more people are likely to know that then apples to apples)). One of them was getting frustrated that their answers weren't getting picked, and I decided at the time to mention something along the lines of "well, maybe he likes less serious answers and likes more sarcastic ones".

They latched on, and from that moment forward all they could talk about was how variously much they either liked or didn't like sarcasm, and would ask every round whether the judge for the round "was sarcastic or not".

I wouldn't be surprised if the same filtered parroting is what you're against, and if so I would agree and also say that I do think that the call-out is appropriate on this post. I don't want to put words in your mouth though, so if I'm off-base I'll be happy to stand corrected.