On June 01 2011 20:37 Supamang wrote: Uhhh, imma let you in on something Naomi Campbell...theres way worse commercials than that jpeg youre crying over:
and this is one of the more mild ones
Theres your problem. I see a guy eating chicken and dancing, advertising for some chicken company... You see a black guy and think this is racist because he's black.
interesting that the only people complaining about my post are non-Americans. you guys just arent familiar with the racial stereotypes here so its forgivable, but the self-righteous tones are really starting to piss me off
Well first off, I lived in Germany for 7 years and loved is; that is why I have it set as my home country.
Secondly, I lived in Houston when I first moved here and now I live in Cleveland... I understand the "racial stereotypes".
Good, then theres absolutely no rational reason as to why you responded so condescendingly towards me.
As I stated in a previous post, the whole purpose of my original post with the video was to show a very, very mildly offensive video that I found to be hilarious and say that even this video is more offensive than the picture Naomi Campbell is bitching about. My little sharing session somehow turned into a bunch of people telling me how hypersensitive I am.
You know whats ironic? Everyone complaining about me being "hypersensitive to racism" is actually being hypersensitive about racial hypersensitivity since my original intent wasnt to complain about racism at all. How fucked up is that? Buncha hypocrites for real
Please show me where I call you hypersensitive toward anything.
LOL, are you fucking joking me? Do you seriously need me to spell it out for you? You said my problem is, and I quote, "You see a black guy and think this is racist because he's black."
And do not give me that idiotic "Well i didn't specifically say you were 'hypersensitive'..." bullshit.
What a hypocrite she is. She did another ad in a bikini stepping through the ears of a giant chocolate bunny for some other company (more than likely it was playboy). Guess she didn't have a problem getting some serious $$ and being photographed in that ad with the chocolate bunny. I think she got paid alot less for the cadbury ad since only her name was used and she is not happy with getting so little compared to the large payout she would have got for them using her photo. This outcry from her must be an attempt to get more money out of cadbury through other means. Typical use of the "racist" card coupled with incoming lawsuit of her bullying a company into a settlement and another paycheck. Which cadbury will do rather than them getting bad press and slandered as "racists"
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.
When I was a kid, a lot of my friends at school lived in this low income housing part of town called "The Heights". anyway, I went to the heights to play baseball one time and long story short our african friend mentioned to our umpire that he had made a bad call. The ump replied "shut up root beer."
Anyway, young root beer proceeded to go home, get his older brother, came back to the baseball diamond, and proceeded to kick the shit out of every kid on the field.
On June 02 2011 22:45 rawbertson wrote: When I was a kid, a lot of my friends at school lived in this low income housing part of town called "The Heights". anyway, I went to the heights to play baseball one time and long story short our african friend mentioned to our umpire that he had made a bad call. The ump replied "shut up root beer."
Anyway, young root beer proceeded to go home, get his older brother, came back to the baseball diamond, and proceeded to kick the shit out of every kid on the field.
Even if it were racist is that grounds for suing? I wasn't aware that you could demand money from someone for having an opinion that you didn't like...
If they decided to make the chocolate bar white chocolate, would she still sue them for using the word "chocolate bar", because that's all I can see it coming down to.
Later on in the article I read that the name "chocolate bar" is used to bully black kids in the schoolyard.
Lol....
Is racism even "sue-a-ble"? Like, I see those crazy white people on Jerry Springer and they don't get sued for hate speech. There are more examples, but is it even against the law? Discrimination is, but actually calling someone "chocolate" is against the law now?
On June 03 2011 20:18 orn wrote: If they decided to make the chocolate bar white chocolate, would she still sue them for using the word "chocolate bar", because that's all I can see it coming down to.
Later on in the article I read that the name "chocolate bar" is used to bully black kids in the schoolyard.
Lol....
Is racism even "sue-a-ble"? Like, I see those crazy white people on Jerry Springer and they don't get sued for hate speech. There are more examples, but is it even against the law? Discrimination is, but actually calling someone "chocolate" is against the law now?
If it is sue-able, I'm gonna sue the next cracker company that personifies crackers in their commercials.
On June 03 2011 20:18 orn wrote: If they decided to make the chocolate bar white chocolate, would she still sue them for using the word "chocolate bar", because that's all I can see it coming down to.
Later on in the article I read that the name "chocolate bar" is used to bully black kids in the schoolyard.
Lol....
Is racism even "sue-a-ble"? Like, I see those crazy white people on Jerry Springer and they don't get sued for hate speech. There are more examples, but is it even against the law? Discrimination is, but actually calling someone "chocolate" is against the law now?
If it is sue-able, I'm gonna sue the next cracker company that personifies crackers in their commercials.
If the court deems the language to be offensive and referring to Ms Campbell, then it's hate speech due to it targeting specifically Naomi Campbell. The reason why some racial comments don't stand up in court, regardless of being "hate speech", is due to the lack of specification. The reason for this is defamation of character. In the United States, hate speech is protected and laws which bar it are unconstitutional; however, if an individual is specifically targeted, it is easy to prove defamation. It would is important to note that the core issue would not be hate speech, but rather defamation of character.
edit:
She doesn't have a case given that she's a public figure and will not be able to prove malicious intent; however, the language on the advertisement should be noted that it doesn't contain an actual comparison of Naomi Campbell to a "Chocolate Bar" nor can she claim that she is not in fact a "Diva".
I do foresee the advertisement being pulled as a gesture of good will.
Today chocolate manufacturer Cadbury released a statement apologizing for an ad that associated notorious supermodel Naomi Campbell with a chocolate bar. Campbell called the ad "racist" and said she planned to sue. Well, the apology is out of the way, but Campbell still isn't happy.
Cadbury said in a statement that it was "not our intention that this campaign should offend Naomi, her family or anybody else and we are sincerely sorry that it has done so." Campbell released her own statement today as well:
I'm pleased that Cadbury have made a 'sincere apology' in regards to their Bliss ad campaign. The advertisement was in poor taste on a number of levels, not least in the way they likened me to their chocolate bar. It is also a shame that it took so long for Cadbury to offer this apology.
Naomi previous said the ad made her feel "hurt." Did it hurt like a Blackberry to the face? Is that what it felt like?
Ms. Campbell also added in her statement that Cadbury should add some people of diverse backgrounds to the company boardroom to avoid any racist ads in the future. Well, you know what, we can't really argue so much with that!
On June 01 2011 21:04 bkrow wrote: So if it was a white chocolate bar that referred to white celebrity "diva" this would be a complete non-issue; yet the fact that it is a "chocolate" coloured chocolate bar is astoundingly racist!?
If you want to be treated as equal to your peers then you have to expect to be treated as equal to your peers.. right? Your skin colour is black, just like mine is white - get over it! Just because you are likened to a chocolate bar does not mean someone is trying to opress you.
Indeed. Also, what if naomi campbell was being compared to a cadbury WHITE chocolate bar? I guarantee she'd still be suing the company because the black lady is being replaced by something white.