|
On June 02 2011 05:53 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:44 lorkac wrote: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.
The reason it is sexist is because the stereotype is that a woman who shows any interests automatically wants sex. Its in most movies (romantic comedies especially) that a male will show up, a female will be slightly flirtatious and they're suddenly naked in the janitor's closet (or wherever)
This stereotype follow women wherever they go. Its the reason some of them don't "trust" male friends--because they're always afraid that any friendly behavior will be construed as sex.
I'm sorry if my bias was projecting without context. That was my fault, I'm sorry about that.
|
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:![[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.
Stop seeing the end of the path before you take it. See, I can do that too!
If she finds it offensive, its her right to sue. Just as I can sue you for wasting the collective time of everyone in the forum.
I'm not saying she can't say she was offended. I'm saying she can't say its racist because she can't, just as you can't, prove that it is. You can try to derail with as many irrelevant scenarios as you want but you still have to address the point to prove your case, you're just spewing smoke. You spend too much time fanning flames instead of addressing the issue of a woman feeling victimized because of her race as the result of an advertising campaign she claims called her a chocolate bar -- if you think this isn't the issue at hand than you really are just standing on the soap box for the sake of standing on it. The advertisement in no way referred to her as a chocolate bar.
And I never said it was solely about intent, but proving intent is involved is a huge issue. If they had intent to act maliciously then they were wrong, it doesn't matter if they smiled and laughed while doing it. I've claimed that there is no direct relation between the person and the item and provided reasons why. You have yet to establish and relation based on the given of why this is a racially charged advertisement other than, "CHOCOLATE IS BLACK AND SHE'S BLACK". I'd love to know what your actual argument is instead of "insert polarizing statement here" with a combination of "wishy washy opinion here".
edit:
What's going to be addressed in court is the same thing that we've had addressed here in another thread, the ever so famous math problem: 48÷2(9+3)=? The answer is: 288 due to the fact you divide then multiply. It's an issue of syntax.
The racism in this advertisement rises from the the line "I'm the world's most pampered bar." It's begs to be read as a continuation of "Move over Naomi, there's a new diva in town. I'm the world's most important bar." not as "Move over Naomi, there's a new Diva in Town." "I'm the world's most pampered bar." The sentences were meant to be read separate, not together. It's a hard concept to grasp given that there are two things occurring on the page at the same time, it hurts peoples heads. It has nothing to do with the perception of the message.
The fact you haven't addressed this is yet, is hilarious...
|
On June 02 2011 05:59 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:38 lorkac wrote: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. Stop seeing the end of the path before you take it. See, I can do that too! If she finds it offensive, its her right to sue. Just as I can sue you for wasting the collective time of everyone in the forum. I'm not saying she can't say she was offended. I'm saying she can't say its racist because she can't, just as you can't, prove that it is. You can try to derail with as many irrelevant scenarios as you want but you still have to address the point to prove your case, you're just spewing smoke. You spend too much time fanning flames instead of addressing the issue of a woman feeling victimized because of her race as the result of an advertising campaign she claims called her a chocolate bar -- if you think this isn't the issue at hand than you really are just standing on the soap box for the sake of standing on it. The advertisement in no way referred to her as a chocolate bar. And I never said it was solely about intent, but proving intent is involved is a huge issue. If they had intent to act maliciously then they were wrong, it doesn't matter if they smiled and laughed while doing it. I've claimed that there is no direct relation between the person and the item and provided reasons why. You have yet to establish and relation based on the given of why this is a racially charged advertisement other than, "CHOCOLATE IS BLACK AND SHE'S BLACK". I'd love to know what your actual argument is instead of "insert polarizing statement here" with a combination of "wishy washy opinion here".
Pretty much what i'd say.
If you wanna say the ad is racist you're gonna have to to come up with a way of linking her skin colour DIRECTLY to the chocolate bar and that being the intended effect. Unfortunately that's next to impossible to do , thus even if it was it'd be insanely difficult to prove.
|
On June 01 2011 21:42 paradoxOO9 wrote:
This should just highlight how stupid political correctness is, no one would care if it was white chocolate and they were using kate moss, why do they care now :S
Its pretty simple, no one themselves wants to be singled out as a racist. I grew up in an area, and went to a school for three years in an area aptly named "brown town" by the influx of east indian immigrants from the last 10~ years, in which as a white guy I was in the minority (somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% of the schools population) and it was just weird. There was almost negative racism that would go around.
Basically, every assumed that if you were white, you were racist. You could be sitting there doing nothing but minding your own business with some friends and someone would come along "You staring at me? Stop being racist... I'm not different than you." to which you;d be kind of confused and maybe let out a "wtfbbq i wasn't staring at you" which would be met by a "Wow, so fucking racist you can't even look at me."
The weird part is that no matter who this happened to, everyone else would seem to bail on them despite how absurd it obviously was because being racist is such a negative social stigma. This stigma makes people afraid to touch anything, and so often people will go round and round in loops to avoid anything even possibly remotely hinting something racial about anything... it actually kind of pisses me off.
|
On June 02 2011 05:50 j2choe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:38 lorkac wrote: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.
I didn't say it was in the eye of the beholder, I said it was subjective and needs heavy discourse to figure out what it is. I said that we shouldn't silence her just because we disagree with her. I said that the whole ordeal is complicated and messy and is not an A+B=C system. It is sometimes intent, and sometimes perception and sometimes a little bit of both and sometimes a little bit of neither. It is complicated and hard to pin down and is the reason why it needs to be discussed constantly.
Things are not true or false just because you deem it to be so. You wanting this debate to be black and white is your limitation, not ours.
|
On June 02 2011 06:03 iCanada wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 21:42 paradoxOO9 wrote:
This should just highlight how stupid political correctness is, no one would care if it was white chocolate and they were using kate moss, why do they care now :S Its pretty simple, no one themselves wants to be singled out as a racist. I grew up in an area, and went to a school for three years in an area aptly named "brown town" by the influx of east indian immigrants from the last 10~ years, in which as a white guy I was in the minority (somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% of the schools population) and it was just weird. There was almost negative racism that would go around. Basically, every assumed that if you were white, you were racist. You could be sitting there doing nothing but minding your own business with some friends and someone would come along "You staring at me? Stop being racist... I'm not different than you." to which you;d be kind of confused and maybe let out a "wtfbbq i wasn't staring at you" which would be met by a "Wow, so fucking racist you can't even look at me." The weird part is that no matter who this happened to, everyone else would seem to bail on them despite how absurd it obviously was because being racist is such a negative social stigma. This stigma makes people afraid to touch anything, and so often people will go round and round in loops to avoid anything even possibly remotely hinting something racial about anything... it actually kind of pisses me off.
You're from Sauga! Ok...you can burn me at the stake now.
|
Yes. It would actually.
But in pop culture, racism towards white women is called sexism while racism towards white men is called being a jerk.
The trend is to believe that white is the norm so you normally don't label things as "racist towards white women" but instead say that it is sexist.
So if it was a black chocolate and a fat white women would be ok? Or they must be a mix color, 75kg, hermaphrodite in order to be fine?
With so much problems in the world, I found this to be an amazing discussion.
|
On June 02 2011 06:04 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 05:50 j2choe wrote:On June 02 2011 05:38 lorkac wrote: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. I didn't say it was in the eye of the beholder, I said it was subjective and needs heavy discourse to figure out what it is. I said that we shouldn't silence her just because we disagree with her. I said that the whole ordeal is complicated and messy and is not an A+B=C system. It is sometimes intent, and sometimes perception and sometimes a little bit of both and sometimes a little bit of neither. It is complicated and hard to pin down and is the reason why it needs to be discussed constantly. Things are not true or false just because you deem it to be so. You wanting this debate to be black and white is your limitation, not ours.
Can you just stick to the point of this discussion? If you're seriously saying that Naomi's allegations deserve "heavy discourse" then you need to patch up that hole in your head stat. Nobody's saying that we shouldn't discuss the matter in general, since it IS a worthy debate, but all I see from your posts is in invitation to frivolity. Not EVERY allegation of racism deserves attention...some of them are just straight up bullshit. Like this one.
|
Why is there still a problem hir? Thats not a racist comment... shes just being rude to the company so they wont make money out of her name(I mean they for sure talk about her but i don't think she can make money out of it by a sue about it, cause well u can really prove is her)...
Shes just being an ass... Finding a why to set a preceden so she wont get that do to her again... some ppl are just greddy bastards... Just let it go guys.
|
This is hilarious. But the sad thing is that the commercial will probably be pulled, someone will still get sued, etc. I mean what other laws have come about from political correctness that wouldn't one day warrant actions like this one?
|
If this case settles out of court I will eat my shoe.
|
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.
you seem to think that cadbury's intentionally used racism in their ad ?
naomi campbell is one of the biggest prima donna's in the world, everyone knows that... for all intents and purposes she could have been a midget, mentally disabled, crippled, disfigured, black, white, blue, fecal matter - it doesn't matter. they used her because she's probably the most well-known diva on earth.
|
On June 02 2011 06:14 shizna 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. you seem to think that cadbury's intentionally used racism in their ad ? naomi campbell is one of the biggest prima donna's in the world, everyone knows that... for all intents and purposes she could have been a midget, mentally disabled, crippled, disfigured, black, white, blue, fecal matter - it doesn't matter. they used her because she's probably the most well-known diva on earth.
intention is not the point of the critique nor is it a functional defense, racial insensitivity can exist outside of intention. that is a completely separate term from racism. the point of staying sensitivite to these issues is to prevent them from becoming commonplace. campbell has every right to sue for the usage of her likeness if she feels she was treated unjustly
in response to other people: i have no market cornering what is racist or not, but anyone can do a critique of the racial undertones present here. imo, it's insensitive and ill-advised
|
if she finds it offensive that's her perogative, but this is just like the super bowl ad with the babies. in which one baby remarks, "is the milk-a-holic lyndsey with you?"
lyndsey lohan claimed it was offensive to her and branded her as an alcoholic. a large portion of that case hinged on whether or not lyndsey lohan is a one name celebrity like madonna or cher.
Naomi campbell has the same hill to climb. she must prove that the advert is indeed targetting her, and she is famous enough that the name Namoi can only be seen as referring to her.
also, she must prove that the ad is offensive. which will be hard because there is nothing to the ad besides the one line, "move over...new diva in town." it makes no mention of the term chocolate bar, or any other racist jargon. [edit] didn't see the tiny print at the bottom about pampered and new flavors, doesn't change the argument though
if anything naomi campbell should be suing for misappropriation of her likeness/name. i don't know whether or not this specific charge has been filed, but if it hasn't been filed it makes her lawsuit less credible.
|
On June 02 2011 06:07 chickenhawk wrote:Show nested quote +Yes. It would actually.
But in pop culture, racism towards white women is called sexism while racism towards white men is called being a jerk.
The trend is to believe that white is the norm so you normally don't label things as "racist towards white women" but instead say that it is sexist. So if it was a black chocolate and a fat white women would be ok? Or they must be a mix color, 75kg, hermaphrodite in order to be fine? With so much problems in the world, I found this to be an amazing discussion.
As I've said before, it's not about what should or shouldn't be said. Its not about censorship. It's about awareness. Just because the Godiva ad was racist does not mean it should be burned at the stake. Its about being honest.
Black chocolate with a fat white woman would most likely upset women with eating disorders/body issues. Mostly because of the fat white woman and less so because of the chocolate--it could be any food product.
Stop trying to make the world's hardships into logic puzzles to solve. A lot of people in the world are bothered/hurt/etc... by many things we deem normal and "common." Those people whether triggered by race, gender, violence, etc... should not be kicked to the curb just because "that's too many things to keep track of."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's important about Naomi's case is that she be listened to. That's it. Whether Canterbury should "win" or not is none of our concern, that's their business and it is private. It will set a precedence that will affect all related cases after it for both the better and the worse. Women and chocolates have been juxtaposed together as a singular entity for the past decade, always sexual always objectified. Not just in this ad but in a lot of other ads. It's not a surprise that someone finally stood up and said asked them to stop it. Would it have been better if it was someone who didn't use to beat the help? Yes. Would it have been better if she got upset at a worse ad than this, yes. But you don't cherry pick emotions and the last straw is the last straw no matter how silly or trivial that straw looks.
People who keep wanting to figure out what specific thing that cadbury is doing wrong do not understand the reason why a minority finally stands up and complains about something. That is why I keep saying over and over again that the rightness and wrongness of both parties means nothing. That the only thing that is important is the discourse.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 02 2011 06:29 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 06:07 chickenhawk wrote:Yes. It would actually.
But in pop culture, racism towards white women is called sexism while racism towards white men is called being a jerk.
The trend is to believe that white is the norm so you normally don't label things as "racist towards white women" but instead say that it is sexist. So if it was a black chocolate and a fat white women would be ok? Or they must be a mix color, 75kg, hermaphrodite in order to be fine? With so much problems in the world, I found this to be an amazing discussion. As I've said before, it's not about what should or shouldn't be said. Its not about censorship. It's about awareness. Just because the Godiva ad was racist does not mean it should be burned at the stake. Its about being honest. Black chocolate with a fat white woman would most likely upset women with eating disorders/body issues. Mostly because of the fat white woman and less so because of the chocolate--it could be any food product. Stop trying to make the world's hardships into logic puzzles to solve. A lot of people in the world are bothered/hurt/etc... by many things we deem normal and "common." Those people whether triggered by race, gender, violence, etc... should not be kicked to the curb just because "that's too many things to keep track of." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What's important about Naomi's case is that she be listened to. That's it. Whether Canterbury should "win" or not is none of our concern, that's their business and it is private. It will set a precedence that will affect all related cases after it for both the better and the worse. Women and chocolates have been juxtaposed together as a singular entity for the past decade, always sexual always objectified. Not just in this ad but in a lot of other ads. It's not a surprise that someone finally stood up and said asked them to stop it. Would it have been better if it was someone who didn't use to beat the help? Yes. Would it have been better if she got upset at a worse ad than this, yes. But you don't cherry pick emotions and the last straw is the last straw no matter how silly or trivial that straw looks. People who keep wanting to figure out what specific thing that cadbury is doing wrong do not understand the reason why a minority finally stands up and complains about something. That is why I keep saying over and over again that the rightness and wrongness of both parties means nothing. That the only thing that is important is the discourse.
if the only important thing was discourse, we would have no legal system because it wouldn't matter who wins, it would only matter that a conflict existed.
think about it this way. if naomi campbell wins a lawsuit, and the ad is deemed racist and offensive, it would turn the advertising industry on its head. white people couldn't sell milk, black people couldn't be in any ad involving something dark/black. no more black people in BP ads, no more white people selling hanes undershirts.....a ruling in naomi's favor would quickly spiral out of control.
|
On June 02 2011 06:38 GrimReefer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 02 2011 06:29 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 06:07 chickenhawk wrote:Yes. It would actually.
But in pop culture, racism towards white women is called sexism while racism towards white men is called being a jerk.
The trend is to believe that white is the norm so you normally don't label things as "racist towards white women" but instead say that it is sexist. So if it was a black chocolate and a fat white women would be ok? Or they must be a mix color, 75kg, hermaphrodite in order to be fine? With so much problems in the world, I found this to be an amazing discussion. As I've said before, it's not about what should or shouldn't be said. Its not about censorship. It's about awareness. Just because the Godiva ad was racist does not mean it should be burned at the stake. Its about being honest. Black chocolate with a fat white woman would most likely upset women with eating disorders/body issues. Mostly because of the fat white woman and less so because of the chocolate--it could be any food product. Stop trying to make the world's hardships into logic puzzles to solve. A lot of people in the world are bothered/hurt/etc... by many things we deem normal and "common." Those people whether triggered by race, gender, violence, etc... should not be kicked to the curb just because "that's too many things to keep track of." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What's important about Naomi's case is that she be listened to. That's it. Whether Canterbury should "win" or not is none of our concern, that's their business and it is private. It will set a precedence that will affect all related cases after it for both the better and the worse. Women and chocolates have been juxtaposed together as a singular entity for the past decade, always sexual always objectified. Not just in this ad but in a lot of other ads. It's not a surprise that someone finally stood up and said asked them to stop it. Would it have been better if it was someone who didn't use to beat the help? Yes. Would it have been better if she got upset at a worse ad than this, yes. But you don't cherry pick emotions and the last straw is the last straw no matter how silly or trivial that straw looks. People who keep wanting to figure out what specific thing that cadbury is doing wrong do not understand the reason why a minority finally stands up and complains about something. That is why I keep saying over and over again that the rightness and wrongness of both parties means nothing. That the only thing that is important is the discourse. if the only important thing was discourse, we would have no legal system because it wouldn't matter who wins, it would only matter that a conflict existed. think about it this way. if naomi campbell wins a lawsuit, and the ad is deemed racist and offensive, it would turn the advertising industry on its head. white people couldn't sell milk, black people couldn't be in any ad involving something dark/black. no more black people in BP ads, no more white people selling hanes undershirts.....a ruling in naomi's favor would quickly spiral out of control.
Just stop "feeding" him. He's just spewing nonsense and he's completely lost sight of the discussion at hand. It's now devolved to standing up for the little guy.
He's inciting debate for the sake of debate, its the worst thing for this specific topic.
|
On June 02 2011 06:38 GrimReefer wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 02 2011 06:29 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 06:07 chickenhawk wrote:Yes. It would actually.
But in pop culture, racism towards white women is called sexism while racism towards white men is called being a jerk.
The trend is to believe that white is the norm so you normally don't label things as "racist towards white women" but instead say that it is sexist. So if it was a black chocolate and a fat white women would be ok? Or they must be a mix color, 75kg, hermaphrodite in order to be fine? With so much problems in the world, I found this to be an amazing discussion. As I've said before, it's not about what should or shouldn't be said. Its not about censorship. It's about awareness. Just because the Godiva ad was racist does not mean it should be burned at the stake. Its about being honest. Black chocolate with a fat white woman would most likely upset women with eating disorders/body issues. Mostly because of the fat white woman and less so because of the chocolate--it could be any food product. Stop trying to make the world's hardships into logic puzzles to solve. A lot of people in the world are bothered/hurt/etc... by many things we deem normal and "common." Those people whether triggered by race, gender, violence, etc... should not be kicked to the curb just because "that's too many things to keep track of." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What's important about Naomi's case is that she be listened to. That's it. Whether Canterbury should "win" or not is none of our concern, that's their business and it is private. It will set a precedence that will affect all related cases after it for both the better and the worse. Women and chocolates have been juxtaposed together as a singular entity for the past decade, always sexual always objectified. Not just in this ad but in a lot of other ads. It's not a surprise that someone finally stood up and said asked them to stop it. Would it have been better if it was someone who didn't use to beat the help? Yes. Would it have been better if she got upset at a worse ad than this, yes. But you don't cherry pick emotions and the last straw is the last straw no matter how silly or trivial that straw looks. People who keep wanting to figure out what specific thing that cadbury is doing wrong do not understand the reason why a minority finally stands up and complains about something. That is why I keep saying over and over again that the rightness and wrongness of both parties means nothing. That the only thing that is important is the discourse. if the only important thing was discourse, we would have no legal system because it wouldn't matter who wins, it would only matter that a conflict existed. think about it this way. if naomi campbell wins a lawsuit, and the ad is deemed racist and offensive, it would turn the advertising industry on its head. white people couldn't sell milk, black people couldn't be in any ad involving something dark/black. no more black people in BP ads, no more white people selling hanes undershirts.....a ruling in naomi's favor would quickly spiral out of control.
i might use this in my class. can you see the rhetorical flaws in this argument?
|
On June 02 2011 06:29 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 06:07 chickenhawk wrote:Yes. It would actually.
But in pop culture, racism towards white women is called sexism while racism towards white men is called being a jerk.
The trend is to believe that white is the norm so you normally don't label things as "racist towards white women" but instead say that it is sexist. So if it was a black chocolate and a fat white women would be ok? Or they must be a mix color, 75kg, hermaphrodite in order to be fine? With so much problems in the world, I found this to be an amazing discussion. As I've said before, it's not about what should or shouldn't be said. Its not about censorship. It's about awareness. Just because the Godiva ad was racist does not mean it should be burned at the stake. Its about being honest. Black chocolate with a fat white woman would most likely upset women with eating disorders/body issues. Mostly because of the fat white woman and less so because of the chocolate--it could be any food product. Stop trying to make the world's hardships into logic puzzles to solve. A lot of people in the world are bothered/hurt/etc... by many things we deem normal and "common." Those people whether triggered by race, gender, violence, etc... should not be kicked to the curb just because "that's too many things to keep track of." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What's important about Naomi's case is that she be listened to. That's it. Whether Canterbury should "win" or not is none of our concern, that's their business and it is private. It will set a precedence that will affect all related cases after it for both the better and the worse. Women and chocolates have been juxtaposed together as a singular entity for the past decade, always sexual always objectified. Not just in this ad but in a lot of other ads. It's not a surprise that someone finally stood up and said asked them to stop it. Would it have been better if it was someone who didn't use to beat the help? Yes. Would it have been better if she got upset at a worse ad than this, yes. But you don't cherry pick emotions and the last straw is the last straw no matter how silly or trivial that straw looks. People who keep wanting to figure out what specific thing that cadbury is doing wrong do not understand the reason why a minority finally stands up and complains about something. That is why I keep saying over and over again that the rightness and wrongness of both parties means nothing. That the only thing that is important is the discourse.
That's fine and well but my problem with this is that Naomi chose the courts as the forum for her grievances. This "everybody gets a voice" position that you extend works well in media, academia, or everyday communication. You can express your opinion many different ways without filing a lawsuit. Unless, of course, you can actually PROVE that the advert was racist, which is another story. So, yes, it IS about who is right or wrong because that is the arena in which she chose to bring up the issue.
Again, nobody is trying to plug up outlets for this type of debate. However, this case should get thrown out of court and quick. You talk about precedent. Well, if cases like these constantly get heard by courts, then the precedent will be that anybody who has their feelings hurt should immediately file a lawsuit. While Naomi's bitching about her hurt feelings, another person is standing in line with a broken leg/arm/face.
|
I'm confused as to how a trial court ruling or outcome sets precedent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
