EPTNaomi Cambell threatens sue over "racist" advert - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Jimmy Raynor
902 Posts
| ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 00:11 howerpower wrote: EVERYTHING is offensive to certain people, so where does this idiotic hypocritical country draw the line? It's not about drawing the line. It's about being aware that things you say can be offensive and to act with that knowledge in mind. For example, when I eat meat I know that I'm eating a dead animal. If I went around telling people that the stake I just had is a vegetable--people would think I was stupid. The fact that the meat I'm eating is a dead animal does not dissuade me from eating the meat, it's simply part of the package. Backtracking to the topic of "offensive" statements, the more important thing is not that people should never say "offensive" things, it's that people should be aware that it's offensive and accept that they are being offensive. When my close friends call me an jerk (especially when I'm being a jerk) they are insulting me, I know and they know that they are insulting me. But we are okay with it because we are aware of the relationship we have and we are okay that we insult each other every now and then. "Stunts" such as this is an attempt by people like Naomi to make known facts and truths about how people see the world. And how people feel attacked by the world in even the most subtle of ways. And that those hurtful comments don't always come from racist bigots, they don't always come from some KKK lynch mobs. Most of the time the hurtful comments come from ads and posters who think its okay to call black people a "chocolate bar." | ||
|
Razith
Canada431 Posts
I'm completely against racism and support stopping it in every way, but this is just counter-productive. Next time a cracker commercial shows a white guy in it, are they allowed to sue? The interesting question is that should Cadburys be considered responsible for the advert having implications they did not make the ad for? and, does this advert show how racism in society is still alive? or is it just political correctness gone mad? Cadbury should just remove the advert and make a new one if its this bothersome. They should not be held responsible. They could apologize for the misinterpretation and that would be enough. Does anyone actually believe this ad was created with racism in mind? This advert shows nothing. The actions of Naomi Cambell says it all. It shows us that some still wont give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to racism. The second anything could possibly be interpreted racist they pounce on it. I know there are still racist people out there and they need to be removed. They are very unintelligent and do not belong in society. I also know everyone out doesn't jump to conclusions of racism, and do give people the benefit of the doubt. These people are the ones who are eliminating racism, not the ones pointing fingers calling it out. | ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
While it may not be, dare I say, in good taste, it's not actually racist. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 00:27 Jimmy Raynor wrote: Wait, how can she sue them when they can just say that they meant another person with the name Naomi? Statements like this reveals how ignorant people are to how African Americans feel when living in the USA. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 00:28 Razith wrote: Next time a cracker commercial shows a white guy in it, are they allowed to sue? Only if they say that the white guy is equal to and equivalent to a cracker. As smart as a cracker. As tasty as a cracker. As salty as a cracker. As crunchy as a cracker. Loves being eaten like a cracker. etc.... Its not about juxtaposition, it's about objectification. It'd be different if it was a black model offering a bar of chocolate--the ad suggests that blacks are as relevant to society as a bar of chocolate. Just this thing non-poor people buy to eat. | ||
|
Cyba
Romania221 Posts
| ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 00:29 KurtistheTurtle wrote: This isn't racist. It doesn't imply something inferior about a people based on their race, it implies that she has black skin like chocolate. While it may not be, dare I say, in good taste, it's not actually racist. Actually, its because this ad tows the line between "bad taste" and "racist" that I think makes it important to be talked about. It's easy to spot an obviously racist ad. But what about a subtly racist ad? If you don't call people out on it, then it'll always just be around. Always present. Always in the background. Until its accepted as normal. And suddenly, something that used to be "a bit racist" becomes "how people understand blacks" or "whites" or "asians" or who ever. The subtle stuff that can be argued as simply being in bad taste are the ads and that need the most attention. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 00:34 Cyba wrote: I'll stay ignorant if geting insulted by a candy bar is all you got. This is not a zero sum game. Its not about staying ignorant vs never being racist. Its about knowing that stuff you say can insult people and to not be surprised that you did. To be willing to say "sorry I offended you, my bad, I'll try to not act this way around you" instead of saying "shut up and just accept whatever I say because your opinions don't mean anything to me" You're still allowed to say racist things--just don't pretend that they're not racist. | ||
|
rea1ity
United Kingdom385 Posts
They'll sue for anything to make an easy buck... | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 00:47 rea1ity wrote: And this is the society we find ourselves in, disgusting! They'll sue for anything to make an easy buck... Your ignorance on how expensive it is just to get the judge to show up really does impress me. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
Razith
Canada431 Posts
On June 02 2011 00:34 lorkac wrote: Only if they say that the white guy is equal to and equivalent to a cracker. As smart as a cracker. As tasty as a cracker. As salty as a cracker. As crunchy as a cracker. Loves being eaten like a cracker. etc.... Its not about juxtaposition, it's about objectification. It'd be different if it was a black model offering a bar of chocolate--the ad suggests that blacks are as relevant to society as a bar of chocolate. Just this thing non-poor people buy to eat. While the ad suggests that the chocolate bar is replacing her, anything racist interpreted beyond that is the predisposition of society believing if there could be racism interpreted, then that is the the main purpose of its message. Are people really this racist, or is the assumption that racism exists everywhere the main motive behind this? I know I'm not racist at all and can't comprehend any reason to be racist, so I find it hard to believe that racism is this bad. I know its illogical to assume that since I'm not racist that many aren't racist, but is it really that bad? Was cadbury's main motive to let society know that blacks are the same as chocolate bars and only wealthy white people buy them, or do you think they wanted a famous figure's name and their product in the same place to generate more sales? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44334 Posts
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 LOL Did not expect to see a Guile Theme reference in here. I think this threat is taken out of context. I think a formal apology from the chocolate company (although unnecessary imo... Naomi is overreacting) will stop any lawsuit from occurring. The clear intention was "diva comparison", not "racism". | ||
|
Stoles
Turkey53 Posts
| ||
|
Drteeth
Great Britain415 Posts
| ||
|
Drteeth
Great Britain415 Posts
On June 02 2011 00:51 lorkac wrote: Your ignorance on how expensive it is just to get the judge to show up really does impress me. maybe this would be an issue if she was a normal everyday person and worth millions. | ||
|
thenextnight
Canada23 Posts
| ||
|
qosu.tQ
United States32 Posts
| ||
|
Asjo
Denmark664 Posts
The fact that Americans often strive to achieve this kind of neutrality in their society can definitely have some positives. When you're situated outside a culture, you might easily be alienated due to cultural misunderstandings. In a way, this very visible effort to "stand up" for minorities shows them some kind of respect, adding an inclusive function to society. At the same time, though, it makes society more insensitive. By setting a standard for how people should speak to avoid misunderstandings, you also ensure that people will more easily be offended by the actions of others. This eventually limits the freedom of people. In Denmark, people will speak very freely and have very honest conversations about issues, and are able to disregard many disruptive elements of the debate that might not relate to the core of a problem (ie. "how do we get this done", not "how do people feel about us doing this, that"). This is good for democracy and social cohesion. In the end, it is simply a cultural difference, which will change over time, depending on the needs of a society. Where this goes to far is when you throw common sense out of the window and have people like lorkac commentating that courts will decide whether this is racist. Courts don't dictate common sense - they use it. Only, USA (and to some degree the rest of the world) has gone berserk in lawsuit frenzies, common sense often being lost in the process. This can lead to a very twisted sense of reality, when unconscious everyday actions become legislated. At some point you simply have to confront this and challenge people. If people get hurt or feel insulted for no good reason, that doesn't mean you are wrong and have to apologize. If you keep saying you're sorry for anything that will offend someone (which, as has been point out previously, anything will), you will end up promoting meaning relativism. That's why Naomi Campbell is not brave to make this lawsuit, rather misguided. As people in this thread has pointed out, it hurts the fight against racism when you twist it this way and make it seem like an almost trivial pursuit. It's similar to the recent case of a bunch of young homosexual committing suicide, where you don't get much accomplished if you simply look at this as a consequence of homophobia instead of looking at it as a problem of bullying or the social culture of today's youth. | ||
| ||
