|
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.
Wow.... that's just....um... wow...uh.... I don't really have anything I can say to this..... It's like watching two ships sailing past each other in the night. Except it's daytime. And clear weather. And you actually have gps machines tracking each other. And you still somehow missed the conversation.
|
On June 02 2011 05:19 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
1.) You're sexist if you expect to have sex with her.
2.) You're racist if you pull it out and try to feed her like an animal
3.) You're racist if you pull it out and say something akin to "I'm eating a chinaman"
4.) It's not the banana that is racist.
|
Why the hell are people still talking about race?
Chocolate Bar: The message of the ad is that the chocolate bar is luxurious and exotic. These are characteristics typically associated with divas. That is the message the advert is trying to convey; hence the overall design and scheme of the ad.
Naomi Campbell: Luxurious and exotic (also, idiotic). She's probably one of the first names that springs to mind when considering individuals who society considers divas. I'm sure even Naomi herself would admit to this. She thrives off that association and hence is the target of this advert.
What is the problem? If you want to look at the colour of the chocolate bar itself and ascribe that to Naomi, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. It's clearly unintentional and you'd have to be grasping pretty far to think otherwise.
|
I can't believe someone is overreacting about race yet again for no reason. Anything can be racist at this point right? Seriously it needs to stop. The ad is not racist at all. Get over yourselves.
|
On June 02 2011 05:11 pyrohippy wrote:Show nested quote +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 Can I point something out? You said, "it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian" yet you're preaching about racism? You're using a logical fallacy (over generalization) and in this context it happens to be a racist comment. Kindly GTFO.
it's only an over generalization if it's wrong
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=214457
only 1% identification of african american/black, 93% asian/white, sorry my numbers were slightly off, that is in no way a racist comment
|
The thing that ticks me off is that this shit makes people bitter over even cries of racism. Some black people are whiny fucks that want publicity or money, just like white people. Then you give more fuel to the retards that think racism is dead.
The sad thing is that some people think worse of black people in general because of these stunts, even though no such thing happens when a white person files an asinine lawsuit.
|
On June 02 2011 05:26 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:19 Kaitlin wrote: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. 1.) You're sexist if you expect to have sex with her. 2.) You're racist if you pull it out and try to feed her like an animal 3.) You're racist if you pull it out and say something akin to "I'm eating a chinaman" 4.) It's not the banana that is racist.
I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, no matter how ridiculous you have to get. You're sexist if you expect to have sex with someone flirting with you ? I'd say you're heterosexual, but not sexist.
|
racism would imply a consistent series of messages from this company, which no one really seems to be accusing them of. however, if you can't see how this specific ad could at least be racially insensitive, i suppose we see things differently
|
On June 02 2011 05:18 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:00 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 04:50 Babyfactory wrote: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. 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.
Sigh...
The *intent* of the advertising has no bearing on whether it was racist or not.
15th Century, English Academics believed that the best way to help ireland was to kill as many irish as they could in order to reduce the violence and barbarism that was present there. Their intent was helpful, their goals noble. Were they racist for wanting to kill a crap tonne of irishmen? Yes.
14th Century, Black Death spreads across Europe. Jews are gathered by germans and put into ghettos and eventually burned in mass in order to save europe from plague. Intentions, noble, end results wanted, grand and heroic. Were they racist? Yes.
Racism is not only about intent. It's not something that is black and white and obvious. Just because the ad wasn't "racist" enough to count for you doesn't mean its not racist. Nor does the ad being offensive to Naomi make it racist. More than once I have said that none of those parts matter. To think they do is to attempt to make solid that which is abstract and subjective.
She found it offensive--whether you believe her or not is up to you. She brings it up to legal court. It is now something to be discussed. You can't say "shut up Naomi, you're opinions don't count just because I was not offended" because that is inherently victim blaming in its structure. Someone obviously thought it was racist enough to require a legal arbitrator, whether you think she's stupid or not does not dispute her claim and her experience. Just because you don't like her claim, does not dispute it. You thinking she is just being "oversensitive" is a common tactic performed on females who attempt to discuss things that they find troubling. Its commonly happens that when a female attempts to make a stand for something that the response given to her is that she should submit for no other reason than she *has* to. Usually because she's being *oversensitive* because it is expected that women simply accept the power dynamic they are placed in.
Stop missing the forest behind the trees.
|
On June 02 2011 05:36 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:11 pyrohippy wrote: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 Can I point something out? You said, "it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian" yet you're preaching about racism? You're using a logical fallacy (over generalization) and in this context it happens to be a racist comment. Kindly GTFO. it's only an over generalization if it's wrong http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=214457only 1% identification of african american/black, 93% asian/white, sorry my numbers were slightly off, that is in no way a racist comment
Good to know. Only the people accusing others can deem their own words not racist. Got it.
|
When I first read it, I too was thinking they were referring to the diva part and not the chocolate bar. This is pretty sad if she gets any type of money from this.
|
On June 02 2011 05:37 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:26 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 05:19 Kaitlin wrote: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. 1.) You're sexist if you expect to have sex with her. 2.) You're racist if you pull it out and try to feed her like an animal 3.) You're racist if you pull it out and say something akin to "I'm eating a chinaman" 4.) It's not the banana that is racist. I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, no matter how ridiculous you have to get. You're sexist if you expect to have sex with someone flirting with you ? I'd say you're heterosexual, but not sexist.
A girl flirting with you does not mean she wants to have sex with you. A girl flirting with you is just a girl flirting with you. You wanting to have sex with her is your heterosexual self wanting to have sex with her. You believing that she wants to have sex with you just because she's flirting is you being sexist. (Even if you're correct 100% of the time, it's till sexist)
If you're already in a situation/conversation where sex is an "obvious" possibility, then yes it's okay to expect sex. Your on a date or you're in a club etc...
If you just walk up to someone randomly, and she says a flirtatious comment, that does not mean she's trying to have sex with you.
|
On June 02 2011 05:38 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:36 benjammin wrote:On June 02 2011 05:11 pyrohippy wrote: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 Can I point something out? You said, "it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian" yet you're preaching about racism? You're using a logical fallacy (over generalization) and in this context it happens to be a racist comment. Kindly GTFO. it's only an over generalization if it's wrong http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=214457only 1% identification of african american/black, 93% asian/white, sorry my numbers were slightly off, that is in no way a racist comment Good to know. Only the people accusing others can deem their own words not racist. Got it.
I think the word is Zing  lolololol
Really though, I laughed, sorry.
|
On June 02 2011 05:38 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:36 benjammin wrote:On June 02 2011 05:11 pyrohippy wrote: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 Can I point something out? You said, "it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian" yet you're preaching about racism? You're using a logical fallacy (over generalization) and in this context it happens to be a racist comment. Kindly GTFO. it's only an over generalization if it's wrong http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=214457only 1% identification of african american/black, 93% asian/white, sorry my numbers were slightly off, that is in no way a racist comment Good to know. Only the people accusing others can deem their own words not racist. Got it.
are you trying to derail? nothing in this line of argument makes any sense
|
"It was certainly never our intention to cause any offense, and the campaign itself is a light-hearted take on the social pretensions of Cadbury Dairy Milk Bliss."
People are way too sensitive, this reminds me of the fish sticks joke from southpark.
|
United States5162 Posts
On June 02 2011 05:44 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:37 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 05:26 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 05:19 Kaitlin wrote: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. 1.) You're sexist if you expect to have sex with her. 2.) You're racist if you pull it out and try to feed her like an animal 3.) You're racist if you pull it out and say something akin to "I'm eating a chinaman" 4.) It's not the banana that is racist. I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, no matter how ridiculous you have to get. You're sexist if you expect to have sex with someone flirting with you ? I'd say you're heterosexual, but not sexist. A girl flirting with you does not mean she wants to have sex with you. A girl flirting with you is just a girl flirting with you. You wanting to have sex with her is your heterosexual self wanting to have sex with her. You believing that she wants to have sex with you just because she's flirting is you being sexist. (Even if you're correct 100% of the time, it's till sexist) If you're already in a situation/conversation where sex is an "obvious" possibility, then yes it's okay to expect sex. Your on a date or you're in a club etc... If you just walk up to someone randomly, and she says a flirtatious comment, that does not mean she's trying to have sex with you.
Expecting someone to have sex because of flirting is sexist? Don't get me wrong, I think it's stupid to expect sex because of some flirting, but that doesn't make someone sexist imo. Sex has nothing to do with that situation. Now if they expect someone to have sex with them because they are flirting AND a specific sex/race/ect than that's sexism/racism/ect, but simply being naive enough to expect sex after flirting is none of those.
|
On June 02 2011 05:38 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:18 Babyfactory wrote:On June 02 2011 05:00 lorkac wrote: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. Sigh... The *intent* of the advertising has no bearing on whether it was racist or not. 15th Century, English Academics believed that the best way to help ireland was to kill as many irish as they could in order to reduce the violence and barbarism that was present there. Their intent was helpful, their goals noble. Were they racist for wanting to kill a crap tonne of irishmen? Yes. 14th Century, Black Death spreads across Europe. Jews are gathered by germans and put into ghettos and eventually burned in mass in order to save europe from plague. Intentions, noble, end results wanted, grand and heroic. Were they racist? Yes. Racism is not only about intent. It's not something that is black and white and obvious. Just because the ad wasn't "racist" enough to count for you doesn't mean its not racist. Nor does the ad being offensive to Naomi make it racist. More than once I have said that none of those parts matter. To think they do is to attempt to make solid that which is abstract and subjective. She found it offensive--whether you believe her or not is up to you. She brings it up to legal court. It is now something to be discussed. You can't say "shut up Naomi, you're opinions don't count just because I was not offended" because that is inherently victim blaming in its structure. Someone obviously thought it was racist enough to require a legal arbitrator, whether you think she's stupid or not does not dispute her claim and her experience. Just because you don't like her claim, does not dispute it. You thinking she is just being "oversensitive" is a common tactic performed on females who attempt to discuss things that they find troubling. Its commonly happens that when a female attempts to make a stand for something that the response given to her is that she should submit for no other reason than she *has* to. Usually because she's being *oversensitive* because it is expected that women simply accept the power dynamic they are placed in. Stop missing the forest behind the trees.
Can't believe the parallels you're making. So racism is always in the eye of the beholder? I guess a court should always pay out in damages whenever somebody alleges racism, no matter how abstract, nuanced or utterly inane the claim might be. After all, subjective standards are the only ones that count right?
Yeah...that works.
|
On June 02 2011 05:44 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:37 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 05:26 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 05:19 Kaitlin wrote: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. 1.) You're sexist if you expect to have sex with her. 2.) You're racist if you pull it out and try to feed her like an animal 3.) You're racist if you pull it out and say something akin to "I'm eating a chinaman" 4.) It's not the banana that is racist. I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, no matter how ridiculous you have to get. You're sexist if you expect to have sex with someone flirting with you ? I'd say you're heterosexual, but not sexist. A girl flirting with you does not mean she wants to have sex with you. A girl flirting with you is just a girl flirting with you. You wanting to have sex with her is your heterosexual self wanting to have sex with her. You believing that she wants to have sex with you just because she's flirting is you being sexist. (Even if you're correct 100% of the time, it's till sexist)If you're already in a situation/conversation where sex is an "obvious" possibility, then yes it's okay to expect sex. Your on a date or you're in a club etc... If you just walk up to someone randomly, and she says a flirtatious comment, that does not mean she's trying to have sex with you.
Here's the thing. I don't have any problem with anything you said except the bolded part. It may be inappropriate, it may be harassment, it may be many things, but "sexist" it isn't. Sexist has to involve something that you assume because they are one sex rather than the other. Just the fact that she is a woman does not make it sexist.
|
On June 02 2011 05:49 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:38 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 05:36 benjammin wrote:On June 02 2011 05:11 pyrohippy wrote: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 Can I point something out? You said, "it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian" yet you're preaching about racism? You're using a logical fallacy (over generalization) and in this context it happens to be a racist comment. Kindly GTFO. it's only an over generalization if it's wrong http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=214457only 1% identification of african american/black, 93% asian/white, sorry my numbers were slightly off, that is in no way a racist comment Good to know. Only the people accusing others can deem their own words not racist. Got it. are you trying to derail? nothing in this line of argument makes any sense
Not trying to derail at all. Simply pointing out that you have cornered the market on determining what is racist and what isn't. It's ok for you to determine that what you say is not racist, but others can't. Obviously Cadbury's doesn't feel their ad is racist, but you deem otherwise.
|
On June 02 2011 03:01 PetitCrabe wrote:
One day, her husband will compare her legs to yummy chocolate bars and he will be sued for racist sexual harrassement. I lol'd HARD at this one, too good.
Anyways, this is all ridiculous, she won't win a penny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
