|
On June 02 2011 04:39 dudeman001 wrote:![[image loading]](http://files.advertolog.com/files/adsarchive/part_647/6476055/file/chocolate-white-chocolate-small-11241.jpg) I don't think you can get much more explicit than that, and yet I see no controversy over it. Naomi's just a little too sensitive imo.
None of us at TL are refuting the fact that Cadbury was being intentionally racist at all. Just a bit negligent, and its their responsibility (however ridiculous) to avoid these kind of things.
|
On June 02 2011 03:39 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:26 VIB wrote:I agree with that. Even if they're comparing her to chocolate. Chocolate are delicious. I would like to be compared to chocolate  African Americans have long slongs Chinese Students study harder "Latin" Americans (South Americans) are good at sex etc.... All are compliments, all are racist. The reason its a problem is because of the possible repercussions it would have in the minority's own community if it were to be accepted as okay. If its okay to think of black women as chocolates (legally so if she loses) then what does that mean to the african community as a whole (legally speaking)? If its okay to call them an innocent food thing, what other stuff is it okay to call them so long as it is "innocent." Lines always have to be drawn if we are to know where we stand.
People have different traits based on their ancestors, there's nothing racist about that. It's racist when you consider one race superior to the others.
Different != Superior/Inferior.
On June 02 2011 04:30 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 04:26 Craton wrote:On June 01 2011 20:20 Steveling wrote:
Yet another case,where those classy advertisers dont have a clue bout real world slangs.
I think she overeacted anyway. Because when I think about a bar of chocolate, I immediately think "woahhhh racism!" I didn't think racism when I first heard the term paki, or gyp, or limey, or kraut, or polock. Heck, 2 of those slurs are even food based just like the chocolate.
You might want to avoid bananas also, offering a banana to a black person is extremely racist you know?
|
On June 02 2011 04:39 dudeman001 wrote:I don't think you can get much more explicit than that, and yet I see no controversy over it. Naomi's just a little too sensitive imo.
Or maybe... you're reading too far in to it? It might be that the photographer chose the right model for the shoot not the color of the chocolate?
It's amazing the straw man arguments that have taken place in this thread and the irrelevant scenarios that have been painted based on assumptions. It's even more amazing that people don't understand the hyperbolic nature of the joke in the advertisement. It's funny because of its absurdity assuming that we can in our minds give an item human characteristics so that it can replace a person in reality. And it's a common advertising technique, this isn't the first time this has been done. It's not a racist advertisement, get over it.
It's sad that so many bigots have come out of the wood work to express their opinion, its sadder that there are people fanning the flames of these kinds of debates without posting a concise argument as they are the actual problem with this specific debate.
How I wish for a world that I don't have to call you a black man and you no longer have to call me a white man. I'd wish you would just call me man.
|
You might want to avoid bananas also, offering a banana to a black person is extremely racist you know?
What the fuck was the point of that comment? Now that was a blatant reference to the common racist assertion that black people are comparable to monkeys. Or am I being too sensitive?
|
On June 02 2011 04:42 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 04:20 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 04:17 Risen wrote:On June 02 2011 04:15 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 04:10 Kaitlin wrote:WTF, dude, you said: The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar. You said "If ... they would have also ....". You speculated what they WOULD HAVE done. Not that they did, but what they WOULD HAVE done, based on your own speculation. That's SPECULATION. I don't know wtf you are pulling all those ads and trying to get some racial overtones. This is some crazy stuff. I'm tempted to start a company, make chocolate covered pretzels, hire an ad agency to feature an African-American gymnast as my spokesmodel, and do it all in your honor. I'm sorry evidence supports my speculation  If you want, I can feel really bad about being right. Or, since this case will be thrown out... you can feel bad being on the wrong side of the law D: I don't care about your "evidence". The court decision will determine the "racism" here, not some random anonymous internet poster. Have you been reading my posts? The fact that I care about the court's decision and not just anecdotal based "common sense" is the whole reason I'm posting. I'd love to know what the court's opinions on this is. Well this is interesting. You appear to be drawing attention to the point that cadbury compares black women to chocolate and has white women eat chocolate. Is this coincidence or hate crime? In my opinion, it's probably just that the adds are targeting different people and coincidence. two of the adds you showed look really old, and I just don't think there is much evidence that they targeted her because of her race at all. Who is the add targeted at? I won't say colored people, but I can certainly say white's don't care that much who the diva in town is.
I simply said that it was not a coincidence that they chose a black model's name for a chocolate bar. My problem with it being that if they had decided to use a white model's name I'm certain they would have used a different chocolate. I was called silly for assuming that, so I went to the first page on google images and just grabbed cadbury chocolate ads with women on them.
I didn't grab the ones with men.
I didn't grab the ones that emphasized *White Milk*
I grabbed the ones with females at the center of their image. Did I know what I would find? No. I assumed I would find it because they seemed like the type of people to do it. I found stuff that supported my assumption because they were there.
Had I looked hard at all I would have found even more.
Hell, the godiva image above is exactly what I was talking about. (And just because she didn't sue doesn't mean it wasn't racist)
|
On June 02 2011 04:48 Danjoh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 03:39 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 03:26 VIB wrote:I agree with that. Even if they're comparing her to chocolate. Chocolate are delicious. I would like to be compared to chocolate African Americans have long slongs Chinese Students study harder "Latin" Americans (South Americans) are good at sex etc.... All are compliments, all are racist. The reason its a problem is because of the possible repercussions it would have in the minority's own community if it were to be accepted as okay. If its okay to think of black women as chocolates (legally so if she loses) then what does that mean to the african community as a whole (legally speaking)? If its okay to call them an innocent food thing, what other stuff is it okay to call them so long as it is "innocent." Lines always have to be drawn if we are to know where we stand. People have different traits based on their ancestors, there's nothing racist about that. It's racist when you consider one race superior to the others. Different != Superior/Inferior. Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 04:30 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 04:26 Craton wrote:On June 01 2011 20:20 Steveling wrote:
Yet another case,where those classy advertisers dont have a clue bout real world slangs.
I think she overeacted anyway. Because when I think about a bar of chocolate, I immediately think "woahhhh racism!" I didn't think racism when I first heard the term paki, or gyp, or limey, or kraut, or polock. Heck, 2 of those slurs are even food based just like the chocolate. You might want to avoid bananas also, offering a banana to a black person is extremely racist you know?
Actually Banana is also a term for asians that are too "americanized."
Its not about the existence of the term, it's how it is used. Just because you are not insulted by something does not mean it isn't insulting.
|
On June 02 2011 04:51 PeT[uK] wrote:Show nested quote +You might want to avoid bananas also, offering a banana to a black person is extremely racist you know? What the fuck was the point of that comment? Now that was a blatant reference to the common racist assertion that black people are comparable to monkeys. Or am I being too sensitive?
That's his point. Some people actively look for racism when there is no racism to be found.
|
On June 02 2011 04:50 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 04:39 dudeman001 wrote:I don't think you can get much more explicit than that, and yet I see no controversy over it. Naomi's just a little too sensitive imo. Or maybe... you're reading too far in to it? It might be that the photographer chose the right model for the shoot not the color of the chocolate? It's amazing the straw man arguments that have taken place in this thread and the irrelevant scenarios that have been painted based on assumptions. It's even more amazing that people don't understand the hyperbolic nature of the joke in the advertisement. It's funny because of its absurdity assuming that we can in our minds give an item human characteristics so that it can replace a person in reality. And it's a common advertising technique, this isn't the first time this has been done. It's not a racist advertisement, get over it. It's sad that so many bigots have come out of the wood work to express their opinion, its sadder that there are people fanning the flames of these kinds of debates without posting a concise argument as they are the actual problem with this specific debate. How I wish for a world that I don't have to call you a black man and you no longer have to call me a white man. I'd wish you would just call me man.
Are you suggesting that the best response to people being bigoted is to let them be bigoted without attempting to discuss with them? If you dislike the arguments, post yours. If you don't have one, then how do you know that the arguments being made are wrong? If you do have one and just don't want to share, then you must prefer that bigots remain bigots?
It's easy to have an ideal. But simply having an ideal without any attempt at attaining it is just mental masturbation.
|
On June 02 2011 04:58 Moonwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 04:51 PeT[uK] wrote:You might want to avoid bananas also, offering a banana to a black person is extremely racist you know? What the fuck was the point of that comment? Now that was a blatant reference to the common racist assertion that black people are comparable to monkeys. Or am I being too sensitive? That's his point. Some people actively look for racism when there is no racism to be found.
People who pretend that there isn't any racism scare me.
|
On June 02 2011 04:46 benjammin wrote:
it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian likes to take every opportunity where someone is offended by a believably offensive and racially coded thing and read it as the over-PC'ing of culture or rampant stupidity or oversensitivity. please spend 3 minutes thinking outside yourself before you post any mindless detritus about how if this was a white chocolate bar it wouldn't be racist
I've not seen anyone here be racist. I need to remind you however, that it's easy to construe practically anything as racist if you really wanted to. Also i'm very much the mind that people regardless of colour/eye shape/lip shape/height/facial features wise, are all growing up in cultures that are a lot more similar than we were even 50 years ago. I therefore know that people regardless of colour can be bloody stupid (and pull the racial trump card), and thats what Naomi is doing in this case.
As if Cadbury's was out to offend or be racist. Come on, why haven't we moved on from this shit.
One worry about cases like these is that due to the race card being such a tired old business these days, it might numb us to real, serious racism down the line.
Edit: @Iorkac, he obviously meant racism in this add. And "scare you", really? Just sounds like faux mumishness to me, like when people on talk show's say "speaking as a mother/parent" when they're really talking crap - but think it makes their banal and useless statements have more strength. Unfortunately in some cultures, it does . But generally it makes it look like you've no leg to stand on.
|
Lol. Political correctness is getting out of hand.
Anyways, isn't racims racist? I don't believe I've seen anyone making a big deal of someone making a "racist claim" about someone white. Just let it go already.
|
Lol Naomi just proves their point of being such a diva 
|
On June 02 2011 05:01 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 04:58 Moonwrath wrote:On June 02 2011 04:51 PeT[uK] wrote:You might want to avoid bananas also, offering a banana to a black person is extremely racist you know? What the fuck was the point of that comment? Now that was a blatant reference to the common racist assertion that black people are comparable to monkeys. Or am I being too sensitive? That's his point. Some people actively look for racism when there is no racism to be found. People who pretend that there isn't any racism scare me.
Look, there is actual racism, and then there is fabricated racism. This chocolate bar ad is fabricated racism. It's not there. Naomi Campbell is insecure about herself and looking to be offended so she finds it. No rational person can find that ad offensive. Real racism, like the KKK and old white trash calling people niggers and whatnot, yeah that's the bad stuff. Unfortunately when nonsense like this ad gets called racist it dilutes the whole idea and the real racism that needs to be stopped just keeps on going.
The person who linked the Morgan Freeman video was spot on. Morgan Freeman is 100% correct on the issue. Racism continues to exist because we allow it to with stupidity like this "controversy" here.
|
|
|
On June 02 2011 04:58 Moonwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 04:51 PeT[uK] wrote:You might want to avoid bananas also, offering a banana to a black person is extremely racist you know? What the fuck was the point of that comment? Now that was a blatant reference to the common racist assertion that black people are comparable to monkeys. Or am I being too sensitive? That's his point. Some people actively look for racism when there is no racism to be found.
Lmfao you have got to be the dumbest person on this planet if you can say that with a straight face lmao. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT NOT RACIST?!!? lmao oh man.
I bet that if any of you had actual empathy for blacks facing racism, you wouldn't say half the things you say on this topic. You can parade around life thinking racism doesn't exist or that racist consist of only a minute fraction of any population - but you are deluding yourself. You yourself may or may not be racist, but that means nothing to the greater picture. To say that blacks are "silly" or juvenile for thinking this way is silly and juvenile in itself. Racism rears it's ugly head more often that you and I can fathom and it is always going to be there. This ad in particular, although distasteful, is not racist. It is a very subtle insinuation that doesn't deserve to be just 'overlooked' but by the same token doesn't deserve to be blown out of proportion.
|
On June 02 2011 05:14 PeT[uK] wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 04:58 Moonwrath wrote:On June 02 2011 04:51 PeT[uK] wrote:You might want to avoid bananas also, offering a banana to a black person is extremely racist you know? What the fuck was the point of that comment? Now that was a blatant reference to the common racist assertion that black people are comparable to monkeys. Or am I being too sensitive? That's his point. Some people actively look for racism when there is no racism to be found. Lmfao you have got to be the dumbest person on this planet if you can say that with a straight face lmao. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT NOT RACIST?!!? lmao oh man. I bet that if any of you had actual empathy for blacks facing racism, you wouldn't say half the things you say on this topic. You can parade around life thinking racism doesn't exist or that racist consist of only a minute fraction of any population - but you are deluding yourself. You yourself may or may not be racist, but that means nothing to the greater picture. To say that blacks are "silly" or juvenile for thinking this way is silly and juvenile in itself. Racism rears it's ugly head more often that you and I can fathom and it is always going to be there. This ad in particular, although distasteful, is not racist. It is a very subtle insinuation that doesn't deserve to be just 'overlooked' but by the same token doesn't deserve to be blown out of proportion.
How is an attribute of 'some people' a racist comment? You realize the irony there, right? You, yourself, are equating his usage of 'some people' to just blacks.
|
On June 02 2011 05:03 Moonwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:01 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 04:58 Moonwrath wrote:On June 02 2011 04:51 PeT[uK] wrote:You might want to avoid bananas also, offering a banana to a black person is extremely racist you know? What the fuck was the point of that comment? Now that was a blatant reference to the common racist assertion that black people are comparable to monkeys. Or am I being too sensitive? That's his point. Some people actively look for racism when there is no racism to be found. People who pretend that there isn't any racism scare me. Look, there is actual racism, and then there is fabricated racism. This chocolate bar ad is fabricated racism. It's not there. Naomi Campbell is insecure about herself and looking to be offended so she finds it. No rational person can find that ad offensive. Real racism, like the KKK and old white trash calling people niggers and whatnot, yeah that's the bad stuff. Unfortunately when nonsense like this ad gets called racist it dilutes the whole idea and the real racism that needs to be stopped just keeps on going. The person who linked the Morgan Freeman video was spot on. Morgan Freeman is 100% correct on the issue. Racism continues to exist because we allow it to with stupidity like this "controversy" here.
And how do you decide which one is real and which one is fabricated? It should just make sense right? No normal human being would let actual bad stuff happen right? Certainly not within the past 50-60 have we allowed bad things to happen to whole swathes of people because common sense would let "real" folk know the difference right?
Its not about Naomi Campbell. Its about the dialogue. What's important is that we talk about it. Was the ad racist? Yes. It was also sexist. Should Cadbury be sued for it? I personally would not sue cadbury for it. My own experiences, my own history and personal biases would not allow me to sue cadbury. But my own experiences are anecdotal at best--ignorant at worse. Discourse, no matter how silly, is important in order to keep "common sense thinking" common. She obviously felt the need to do it--I can make fun of her for it all I want but it's still her choice. Whether she's lying, telling the truth or just bored doesn't make a difference. It's her choice to make even if its not the choice I would have made. And I don't like the mindset of belittling someone's choice just because we don't feel like she's cool enough for the club.
|
On June 02 2011 05:00 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 04:50 Babyfactory wrote:On June 02 2011 04:39 dudeman001 wrote:I don't think you can get much more explicit than that, and yet I see no controversy over it. Naomi's just a little too sensitive imo. Or maybe... you're reading too far in to it? It might be that the photographer chose the right model for the shoot not the color of the chocolate? It's amazing the straw man arguments that have taken place in this thread and the irrelevant scenarios that have been painted based on assumptions. It's even more amazing that people don't understand the hyperbolic nature of the joke in the advertisement. It's funny because of its absurdity assuming that we can in our minds give an item human characteristics so that it can replace a person in reality. And it's a common advertising technique, this isn't the first time this has been done. It's not a racist advertisement, get over it. It's sad that so many bigots have come out of the wood work to express their opinion, its sadder that there are people fanning the flames of these kinds of debates without posting a concise argument as they are the actual problem with this specific debate. How I wish for a world that I don't have to call you a black man and you no longer have to call me a white man. I'd wish you would just call me man. Are you suggesting that the best response to people being bigoted is to let them be bigoted without attempting to discuss with them? If you dislike the arguments, post yours. If you don't have one, then how do you know that the arguments being made are wrong? If you do have one and just don't want to share, then you must prefer that bigots remain bigots? It's easy to have an ideal. But simply having an ideal without any attempt at attaining it is just mental masturbation.
I have posted mine, but you've been too busy waving assumptions (see: white chocolate = white woman) and making straw man arguments without actually asserting yourself. If anything, you've just been trolling given the quality of your responses / arguments and it's quite sad.
I stated that it was sad that bigots actually had to respond, but they will. That's the reality when one side makes an issue out of a non-issue the other side will retort. The issue with race debates are individuals such as yourself who have to further belabor and exacerbate the argument with fictitious scenarios based on plausible assumptions that have no bearing the actual argument at hand but are merely used to incite further debates.
If you want to actually defend that the advertisement was racist, you have to actually prove that Naomi was picked for her Color, not her name, not her notoriety, not the fact that she's one of two super models in Britain (I believe Kate Moss is the only other actual Super Model), and that by selecting her that the specific method used was able to convey a direct link to establishing her as inferior based on her color. I'll give you a head start: just because dark / milk chocolate happens to be black / brown doesn't count.
You haven't done any of this. You've just been shouting and riling people up.
Edit: I'll even help you out more, just because you can counter the argument of "she isn't qualified to sue because she's a bad person" with "well, what if someone who was qualified was sued" doesn't count either... it's a logical fallacy.
|
On June 02 2011 04:56 lorkac wrote:
Actually Banana is also a term for asians that are too "americanized."
Holy crap. I had never heard this before. This makes everything even more confusing. Here is the problem we're facing these days.
Suppose I want to have a banana for lunch, so I put it in my pocket to bring to work. The African-American receptionist in my office notices it and asks me: "Is that a banana in your pocket or are you happy to see me?"
What am I to think?
1. I am sexist if I think she is hitting on me ?
2. I am racist against African-Americans if I think she is hungry (assuming monkeys like bananas).
3. I am racist against Asians if I think she is referring to my Asian assistant, who might be considered "in my pocket" since he does a lot of things at my request ?
4. I am simply too naive to exist in today's world because I didn't know to never put a fvcking banana in my pocket in the first place.
I've already come across three new references in this thread of racial inferences that I didn't know existed. Surely more are out there. It's unreasonable to imply racism simply because somebody can't keep up with everything that everybody wants to deem as racist.
|
On June 02 2011 05:16 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:14 PeT[uK] wrote:On June 02 2011 04:58 Moonwrath wrote:On June 02 2011 04:51 PeT[uK] wrote:You might want to avoid bananas also, offering a banana to a black person is extremely racist you know? What the fuck was the point of that comment? Now that was a blatant reference to the common racist assertion that black people are comparable to monkeys. Or am I being too sensitive? That's his point. Some people actively look for racism when there is no racism to be found. Lmfao you have got to be the dumbest person on this planet if you can say that with a straight face lmao. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT NOT RACIST?!!? lmao oh man. I bet that if any of you had actual empathy for blacks facing racism, you wouldn't say half the things you say on this topic. You can parade around life thinking racism doesn't exist or that racist consist of only a minute fraction of any population - but you are deluding yourself. You yourself may or may not be racist, but that means nothing to the greater picture. To say that blacks are "silly" or juvenile for thinking this way is silly and juvenile in itself. Racism rears it's ugly head more often that you and I can fathom and it is always going to be there. This ad in particular, although distasteful, is not racist. It is a very subtle insinuation that doesn't deserve to be just 'overlooked' but by the same token doesn't deserve to be blown out of proportion. How is an attribute of 'some people' a racist comment? You realize the irony there, right? You, yourself, are equating his usage of 'some people' to just blacks.
lmfao no i'm not. His usage of some people is not being misconstrued by me for blacks only. I am taking his usage of some people to represent the people who, as he described, "look for racism" and my response was referring to the original comment of with the banana. I didnt call him racist I was calling the banana comment-maker a racist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
