|
On June 02 2011 02:35 Mammel wrote:
Well, it's definitely racist to compare cambell and chocolate bar, a chocolate bar tastes good, doesn't whine about unnecessary shit and actually has value.
Perhaps some day all blacks/minoritioes realize that calling someone who says facts a racist is just going to bite them into ass. Not a single person should keep word "racist" in any value anymore. It's used from everything between torturing someone to not opening a door to black woman...
You are retarded if you think racism doesn't exist anymore, or can't be used to describe actions from others. Retarded.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 02 2011 03:04 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote:
I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that?
There are a million other references that could have been made. The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Edit:
And yes, it would have been just as racist to use a white chocolate bar and a white model.
|
On June 02 2011 02:52 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:51 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:44 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:26 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:14 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case. Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth. If I was in charge of Cadbury, I would hire another African American woman named "Naomi" and say this is who we where referring too. :D Didn't they hire her already to do the ad? I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva". Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is. Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is. Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent? An hydralisk is a public figure right?
lol, no a hydralisk isn't a public figure. Likely Blizzard would have legal rights to the names it creates. Think about all the political ads we see. Do you think the political targets of all those ads gave their consent ? Hell to the no lol. But since they are public figures, they have to deal with them.
|
On June 02 2011 03:04 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote:
I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that?
There are a million other references that could have been made. The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
OK I'm am actually certain no one is stupid enough to make the direct correlation between her skin and the chocolate bar. It was implied whether intentional or not, the company should take responsibility. If there is even the slightest possibility of a reaction like this a company should never put the ad out. It's basic marketing.
|
On June 02 2011 03:06 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:04 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote:
I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that?
There are a million other references that could have been made. The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar. The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
|
On June 02 2011 03:06 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:52 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:51 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:44 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:26 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:14 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:
[quote]
Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue.
Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad"
Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed.
It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge.
EDIT:
In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case. Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth. If I was in charge of Cadbury, I would hire another African American woman named "Naomi" and say this is who we where referring too. :D Didn't they hire her already to do the ad? I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva". Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is. Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is. Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent? An hydralisk is a public figure right? lol, no a hydralisk isn't a public figure. Likely Blizzard would have legal rights to the names it creates. Think about all the political ads we see. Do you think the political targets of all those ads gave their consent ? Hell to the no lol. But since they are public figures, they have to deal with them.
You could make a game about a company who made games called Blizzard. So long as it was "indirect" and depended on "pop culture context" to realize who you were talking about. (You're game could call the company Bizzard or Blizz Ard for example)
|
On June 02 2011 03:06 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:52 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:51 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:44 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:26 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:14 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:
[quote]
Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue.
Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad"
Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed.
It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge.
EDIT:
In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case. Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth. If I was in charge of Cadbury, I would hire another African American woman named "Naomi" and say this is who we where referring too. :D Didn't they hire her already to do the ad? I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva". Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is. Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is. Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent? An hydralisk is a public figure right? lol, no a hydralisk isn't a public figure. Likely Blizzard would have legal rights to the names it creates. Think about all the political ads we see. Do you think the political targets of all those ads gave their consent ? Hell to the no lol. But since they are public figures, they have to deal with them. So why do games like Winning11 have to use fake names for the football players while Electronic Arts payed for the right to use real player names on their FIFA games series? Aren't football players just as public figures as Naomi?
|
On June 02 2011 03:09 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:06 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:52 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:51 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:44 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:26 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:14 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:
[quote]
But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case.
Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth. If I was in charge of Cadbury, I would hire another African American woman named "Naomi" and say this is who we where referring too. :D Didn't they hire her already to do the ad? I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva". Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is. Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is. Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent? An hydralisk is a public figure right? lol, no a hydralisk isn't a public figure. Likely Blizzard would have legal rights to the names it creates. Think about all the political ads we see. Do you think the political targets of all those ads gave their consent ? Hell to the no lol. But since they are public figures, they have to deal with them. You could make a game about a company who made games called Blizzard. So long as it was "indirect" and depended on "pop culture context" to realize who you were talking about. (You're game could call the company Bizzard or Blizz Ard for example)
But if the company was slandered in anyway Blizzard could make the case that it was detrimental to their image due to the obvious similarities and such
|
On June 02 2011 03:07 PeT[uK] wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:04 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote:
I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that?
There are a million other references that could have been made. The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar. OK I'm am actually certain no one is stupid enough to make the direct correlation between her skin and the chocolate bar. It was implied whether intentional or not, the company should take responsibility. If there is even the slightest possibility of a reaction like this a company should never put the ad out. It's basic marketing.
Well, I'm sure the chocolate company paid some outside advertising agency to create the ad. It's not something chocolate companies do themselves. Professional marketing companies know "basic marketing". Obviously they didn't think it was racist, or they wouldn't have put it out there. Some of us in this thread had to ponder the ad to see how it was racist. How much time should someone devote to brainstorming every "slightest possibility" that something could be offensive to someone ?
|
On June 02 2011 03:10 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:06 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:52 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:51 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:44 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:26 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:14 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:
[quote]
But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case.
Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth. If I was in charge of Cadbury, I would hire another African American woman named "Naomi" and say this is who we where referring too. :D Didn't they hire her already to do the ad? I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva". Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is. Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is. Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent? An hydralisk is a public figure right? lol, no a hydralisk isn't a public figure. Likely Blizzard would have legal rights to the names it creates. Think about all the political ads we see. Do you think the political targets of all those ads gave their consent ? Hell to the no lol. But since they are public figures, they have to deal with them. So why do games like Winning11 have to use fake names for the football players while Electronic Arts payed for the right to use real player names on their FIFA games series? Aren't football players just as public figures as Naomi?
I think this has more to do with the rights of the league to the teams and such. I'm not sure, but I know in U.S. law, public figures have very little recourse against people using their names and likenesses.
|
On June 02 2011 01:42 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 01:32 Cyba wrote:
Most women get offended as fuck when they see those ridiculous detergent comercials. Yet they can't sue because that's not racism it's just sexism not a very big deal right?
They prolly can sue and would win too common sense has a word too though, people can take offense in a ton of stupid shit, racism shouldn't be treated different then all the other cases. People who can get offended over friend chicken or a chocolate bar need to grow up imo. Racism is when people beat you up, won't hire you, harass you so on so forth, only because of your race, anything else is just dust in the wind.
Yes, you have the right to sue. Yes, racism and sexism shouldn't be treated any differently than any other cases. Women should (and used to) complain and sue against those things you brought up. There's no reason to stop now apart from fear. And what you brought up, "harass you so on so forth," that is exactly what Naomi is doing. She is being harassed by the color of her skin. Publicly. For all the world to see. By your logic, she's completely in the right except for the part that you don't mind colored folk being publicly ridiculed for skin color (as opposed to personality).
Lol no she's the one harassing the company for making something mildly interpretable (only if you're a racist deep down inside) as a racial slur.
|
On June 02 2011 03:15 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:10 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 03:06 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:52 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:51 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:44 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:34 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:26 VIB wrote:On June 02 2011 02:14 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:
[quote]
Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else.
Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell"
Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi"
Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C"
Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F"
And so on and so forth.
If I was in charge of Cadbury, I would hire another African American woman named "Naomi" and say this is who we where referring too. :D Didn't they hire her already to do the ad? I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva". Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is. Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is. Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent? An hydralisk is a public figure right? lol, no a hydralisk isn't a public figure. Likely Blizzard would have legal rights to the names it creates. Think about all the political ads we see. Do you think the political targets of all those ads gave their consent ? Hell to the no lol. But since they are public figures, they have to deal with them. So why do games like Winning11 have to use fake names for the football players while Electronic Arts payed for the right to use real player names on their FIFA games series? Aren't football players just as public figures as Naomi? I think this has more to do with the rights of the league to the teams and such. I'm not sure, but I know in U.S. law, public figures have very little recourse against people using their names and likenesses. Ok, I'll try to look more into that. Thanks for helping anyway ^^
|
On June 02 2011 03:12 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:07 PeT[uK] wrote:On June 02 2011 03:04 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote:
I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that?
There are a million other references that could have been made. The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar. OK I'm am actually certain no one is stupid enough to make the direct correlation between her skin and the chocolate bar. It was implied whether intentional or not, the company should take responsibility. If there is even the slightest possibility of a reaction like this a company should never put the ad out. It's basic marketing. Well, I'm sure the chocolate company paid some outside advertising agency to create the ad. It's not something chocolate companies do themselves. Professional marketing companies know "basic marketing". Obviously they didn't think it was racist, or they wouldn't have put it out there. Some of us in this thread had to ponder the ad to see how it was racist. How much time should someone devote to brainstorming every "slightest possibility" that something could be offensive to someone ?
Are you kidding me? Cadbury HAS to look at the ad before they consider putting it out there. They have to approve it, and it behooves them to ALWAYS think of every possibility - much like this one. Not doing that will result in the defamation of their name, because they simply overlooked very obvious (if you ask me) potential racist connotations. It's in the job descriptions of both the advertising agency and Cadbury.
|
|
|
I've never heard anyone call a black person a chocolate bar and I went to school in a rather racist area. Do people actually use this slang or is this slang just made up and people say it's a racial slur?
The bar makers obviously are not making a comparison to skin color, but she's too dumb to understand that. If she sues and wins, I lose the hope I never had in our civil court system.
|
There's nothing racist about this, because the word chocolate bar is used by a select few people referring demeaningly to black people doesn't mean that Cadbury's commercial is, it's referring to the fucking product, a chocolate bar.
|
Only people looking for racism are going to find it. They themselves are the actual racist ones.
|
|
|
I agree with that. Even if they're comparing her to chocolate. Chocolate are delicious. I would like to be compared to chocolate 
|
What now?
I see dark chocolate in all 5 pictures you linked, 3 times with a white woman, once with a reference to a black woman and once without any woman at all.
Kind of disproving your own theory there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
