
Naomi Cambell threatens sue over "racist" advert - Page 8
Forum Index > General Forum |
gold_
Canada312 Posts
![]() | ||
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
On June 01 2011 23:58 Supamang wrote: 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. | ||
IreScath
Canada521 Posts
This whole much ado is really about nothing. | ||
Razith
Canada431 Posts
On June 02 2011 01:07 Asjo wrote: + Show Spoiler + A central point of debate in this topic seems to be the American hypersensitivity towards anything discriminatory. This has, of course, developed in part as a conscious counter-action to the extreme discrimination and oppression that blacks experienced, and bad period that people are still trying to mend. In contrast to this, you have a small and very homogenous country like Denmark, where we have quite crude and very depricating humour. An extreme example of this would be the reactions to the recent statements of Lars von Trier at the Cannes Film Fesvital. 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. Good post; you touched on many of the problems of why racism still exists today. Western societies are insanely sensitive when it comes to racism. The rule of thumb seems to be "if it can be taken as racist, it is racist". If we continue this way, racism won't stop until people stop talking to eachother in fear of offending one another. | ||
Cyba
Romania221 Posts
They prolly can sue and would win too common sense has a word too though, people can take offense in a ton of stupid shit, racism shouldn't be treated different then all the other cases. People who can get offended over friend chicken or a chocolate bar need to grow up imo. Racism is when people beat you up, won't hire you, harass you so on so forth, only because of your race, anything else is just dust in the wind. | ||
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
Its in a lot of subtle things that happens in american culture. Little things like having the "pretty" actors in movies be predominantly white to beauty products that promise to lighten skin or darken hair (in order to contrast the skin). Little things like racial profiling amongst police officers, racial profiling in airports, etc... Then it starts to seep down into even more subtle things. Like reduced funding to schools in poor (mostly non-white) neighborhoods. Political attacks on social programs that are predominantly helpful towards non-whites. Social fears such as being scared of gangs and thugs (who are normally understood as non-white) while at the same time glamorizing mobsters and "godfather-esque" gangs (who are normally understood as white). There's a lot of deep seeded problems in American culture. Racism is a big problem in America. When the US got an African American president, a whole movement came into existence that questioned whether he was American. None of the previous presidents have ever been questioned whether they were American enough or not. No one thought to even think of it as a problem until a non-white president showed up. And its not because Whites are being racist towards blacks. And its not because Non-Whites are being attacked by Non-Coloured. Its all subtle things that people project onto themselves. Black women try to lighten to skin not because white people told them to, but because they envy white people. Women fear black men walking the streets at night, not because she's supposed to fear men but because she's supposed to fear "thugs" and "gangsters" who in her mind are supposed to be black/mexican. And it goes the other way too. When a police officer accidentally hurts/kills a black man, minorities assume it is racism and not just a police officer doing his job. When a minority doesn't get a job but sees that most of the employees are white, they assume racism and not a bad resume/interview. There is a lot of deep seeded problems in american culture. America is doing *everything* it can to counteract these problems. And yes, it leads to silly things such as a chocolate ad being understood as racist. These discussions *need* to made in America because America believes that racism has been fixed just because there are no more slaves. Racism has not been fixed in America. Racism is a big problem in America. This is why these discussions need to be made. | ||
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 02 2011 01:10 gold_ wrote: I don't know who Naomi Cambell is, but she sounds like she has a chip on her shoulder. Is this comment racist ? By chip, you are most certainly referring to "chocolate chip", are you not ? We are all racists, I guess. When the US got an African American president, a whole movement came into existence that questioned whether he was American. None of the previous presidents have ever been questioned whether they were American enough or not. No one thought to even think of it as a problem until a non-white president showed up. It's not because of the color of his skin. There are plenty of Blacks, which nobody would doubt their natural-born status, should they run for President. There was no question when Jesse Jackson ran a while back. Nobody is doubting Herman Cain's status as a natural-born U.S. Citizen. | ||
Dr. Von Derful
United States363 Posts
On June 02 2011 01:07 Asjo wrote: A central point of debate in this topic seems to be the American hypersensitivity towards anything discriminatory. This has, of course, developed in part as a conscious counter-action to the extreme discrimination and oppression that blacks experienced, and bad period that people are still trying to mend. In contrast to this, you have a small and very homogenous country like Denmark, where we have quite crude and very depricating humour. An extreme example of this would be the reactions to the recent statements of Lars von Trier at the Cannes Film Fesvital. 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. Both Cadbury and Naomi are based in the United Kingdom. I have no idea why people keep blaming or bringing in the United States... the British are more lawsuit happy than American have and ever will be. However, you do bring up many good points in your post -- I do apologize for not addressing them directly, as they do deserve attention. | ||
nozh
Canada93 Posts
| ||
gold_
Canada312 Posts
On June 02 2011 01:35 Kaitlin wrote: Is this comment racist ? By chip, you are most certainly referring to "chocolate chip", are you not ? We are all racists, I guess. Nailed it! | ||
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 01:32 Cyba wrote: Most women get offended as fuck when they see those ridiculous detergent comercials. Yet they can't sue because that's not racism it's just sexism not a very big deal right? They prolly can sue and would win too common sense has a word too though, people can take offense in a ton of stupid shit, racism shouldn't be treated different then all the other cases. People who can get offended over friend chicken or a chocolate bar need to grow up imo. Racism is when people beat you up, won't hire you, harass you so on so forth, only because of your race, anything else is just dust in the wind. Yes, you have the right to sue. Yes, racism and sexism shouldn't be treated any differently than any other cases. Women should (and used to) complain and sue against those things you brought up. There's no reason to stop now apart from fear. And what you brought up, "harass you so on so forth," that is exactly what Naomi is doing. She is being harassed by the color of her skin. Publicly. For all the world to see. By your logic, she's completely in the right except for the part that you don't mind colored folk being publicly ridiculed for skin color (as opposed to personality). | ||
IreScath
Canada521 Posts
On June 02 2011 01:37 nozh wrote: pull the ad, apologize publicly, problem solved. Pull the ad? really? Sticks and stones will break her bones... and I guess words in an ad will kill her | ||
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 02 2011 01:37 nozh wrote: pull the ad, apologize publicly, problem solved. I couldn't disagree more. Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch ? | ||
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 01:35 Kaitlin wrote: Is this comment racist ? By chip, you are most certainly referring to "chocolate chip", are you not ? We are all racists, I guess. It's not because of the color of his skin. There are plenty of Blacks, which nobody would doubt their natural-born status, should they run for President. There was no question when Jesse Jackson ran a while back. Nobody is doubting Herman Cain's status as a natural-born U.S. Citizen. And no one complained about Obama's citizenship until he won. The fact is, until he became the president no one gave a damn where he came from. Its not like he simply ran in the primaries and people went "should this guy even be here?" Instead, they only started complaining when he won. | ||
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote: I couldn't disagree more. Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch ? Now do you understand why it is a lawsuit? Company makes ad. Someone asks them to take it down. Company responds "Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch?" Lawsuit made. | ||
darkscream
Canada2310 Posts
| ||
Roeder
Denmark735 Posts
| ||
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote: Now do you understand why it is a lawsuit? Company makes ad. Someone asks them to take it down. Company responds "Ads aren't free. Why should the business have to throw away money just to appease this bitch?" Lawsuit made. Naomi Campbell spending more money than she has -> lawsuit made? I doubt she seriously feels offended by that ad, if anything she was mad at them using her name for free and then her lawyers recommended suing with this angle instead. | ||
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On June 02 2011 01:49 Roeder wrote: Is it me or is the racist actually Naomi Cambell in this case? You're half right. They're both being racist. Naomi is the one who perceives that chocolate equals skin color. Cadbury is the one who thinks a black woman should shut up about being insulted. | ||
Dr. Von Derful
United States363 Posts
On June 02 2011 01:47 darkscream wrote: What the fuck? Page 1 chocolate bars, page 8 obama? ...yeah, somehow an issue involving a British company making an ad referencing a British Super Model ended up debating the political correctness and racial sensitivity in America. I'd say it's a successful thread, at this rate we'll be debating if Menthol Cigs are racist or not. | ||
| ||