|
On June 02 2011 01:45 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 01:35 Kaitlin wrote: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. 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.
That's simply not true. I specifically remember McCain taking the position that he would not get into the debate over whether Obama was natural-born or not. The argument was going on before Obama was elected.
|
i think all that racism shit is so retarded. people seem to be bent on pretending there is no difference between people/races etc. but i think thats just stupid. hell yeah negroes hispanics whites and asians are different from eachother, its just that the differences don't make a person less valuable. stating the obvious (like saying the skin of a negro is like the color of a chocolate bar or saying that the skin of a white man looks like snow or something) shouldnt be considered racist.
|
On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote: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 ? 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.
I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue.
|
On June 02 2011 01:51 Sablar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote: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 ? 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.
Are you saying this because you don't think she cares about race issues or are you saying this because you think she's greedy?
Both arguments are valid. As is the argument that she cares about race issues. In truth, we won't really know the real reason why, simply the reason she tells us. However, her intent is irrelevant. What's important is the "so what?"
A line has to be drawn on what counts as racist and not racist. This lawsuit is suggesting that the line be drawn on chocolate bars. Some folks disagree. I've read at least one suggesting that anything outside of physical attacks, harassment and job loss is not racist. Its not important that the line be drawn or not drawn on chocolate bar. What's important is to be reminded that there is a line, and that line is different from person to person and that maybe we as a society should be much more specific on where that line is.
|
On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote: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 ? 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. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue.
Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue.
Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad"
Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed.
It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge.
EDIT:
In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar.
|
On June 02 2011 01:12 B00ts wrote:
so I guess the new N word is nougat?
This whole much ado is really about nothing.
LOL I was just perusing mindin' my own and this made me wake my roomie up XD It's 10 anyways, but yeah...
On-Topic: Much ado about nothing, this gives her some public attention at a time when she's somewhat waning. She saw an opportunity and pounced.
Unrelated: I would hit it with a ten ton hammer...
|
On June 02 2011 02:00 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 01:12 B00ts wrote:
so I guess the new N word is nougat?
This whole much ado is really about nothing. LOL I was just perusing mindin' my own and this made me wake my roomie up XD It's 10 anyways, but yeah... On-Topic: Much ado about nothing, this gives her some public attention at a time when she's somewhat waning. She saw an opportunity and pounced. Unrelated: I would hit it with a ten ton hammer...
The nougat or the model?
|
On June 02 2011 02:03 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:00 Risen wrote:On June 02 2011 01:12 B00ts wrote:
so I guess the new N word is nougat?
This whole much ado is really about nothing. LOL I was just perusing mindin' my own and this made me wake my roomie up XD It's 10 anyways, but yeah... On-Topic: Much ado about nothing, this gives her some public attention at a time when she's somewhat waning. She saw an opportunity and pounced. Unrelated: I would hit it with a ten ton hammer... The nougat or the model?
I'd be willing to bet both, I would.
edit:
I don't know how people are coming to the conclusion this advertisement is CALLING Naomi a Chocolate Bar. She's being CALLED a Diva. If anything they're IMPLYING she's less than their specific brand of chocolate bar (by saying its a bigger Diva than she is); however, the actual insult lies in that she's being called a Diva as the comparison is meant as a hyperbolic statement that the absurdity is what gives it its humor.
It'd be a very far stretch to assume they wanted to draw attention to her skin color rather than her behavior as a person. It's a TMZ-esque move... people like to gossip about people acting like diva's not their skin color (that only applies to the late and great MJ). It's obvious she is doing this as an attention grab, especially considering Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are getting involved to attack the new parent company that acquired them.
There's so much random banter and misinformation in this thread is befuddling. These racial arguments always get bogged down with people who bring up side arguments simply for the sake of arguing, its saddening and its a huge reason why the discussion on the topic never really goes anywhere.
|
On June 02 2011 01:35 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes, sorry for not being clear on that. I don't mean to say that this issue only concerns USA or Americans. However, since a majority of this forum's population are Americans, the debate will likely revolve around the cultural difference I have mentioned, which has been highlighted in most of the posts supporting the lawsuit.
|
On June 02 2011 00:51 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +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.
And your utter dribble through-out this thread shocks me, you clearly have no idea of the systems in place or the procedure that happens. Do you think she is suing them for the sake of it? She is suing them for financial gain - anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly deluded.
|
On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote: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 ? 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. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar.
The accuser and accused don't just magically show up to court. The accuser files the lawsuit. That is what makes them the accuser and the accused, the accused. Then, the accused receives mail that they've been sued, and are instructed to respond. By the point in your example where it gets to the judge, things have already been filed. The very first thing to happen in any legal proceeding is for one party to file suit against the other. I'm not sure why we're even discussing this.
|
On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote: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 ? 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. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar.
But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case.
|
On June 02 2011 02:05 Babyfactory wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:03 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 02:00 Risen wrote:On June 02 2011 01:12 B00ts wrote:
so I guess the new N word is nougat?
This whole much ado is really about nothing. LOL I was just perusing mindin' my own and this made me wake my roomie up XD It's 10 anyways, but yeah... On-Topic: Much ado about nothing, this gives her some public attention at a time when she's somewhat waning. She saw an opportunity and pounced. Unrelated: I would hit it with a ten ton hammer... The nougat or the model? I'd be willing to bet both, I would.
I wonder where the term "hit it" came from?
I mean, when you're attracted to someone of the opposite sex--is the right mind set violence? More specifically, when did it become "common sense" to equate having sex with a woman to hitting a woman? When did it become "okay" to say that in public? If the ad was "I'd hit Naomi Campbell with a ten tonne hammer" would that be slanderous or flirtatious? Would it be better or worse than calling her a chocolate bar? Is there a difference?
|
Fucking minorities always causing drama
|
On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote: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 ? 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. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case.
Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else.
Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell"
Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi"
Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C"
Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F"
And so on and so forth.
|
Pardon my newbishness. But since they're hiring her to do the ad. Didn't she have to agree with the ad BEFORE it went public? How can she say "ok I agree with this, pay me" and then say "actually I don't like it, pay me more"?
|
On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote: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 ? 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. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case. Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth.
If I was in charge of Cadbury, I would hire another African American woman named "Naomi" and say this is who we where referring too. :D
|
On June 02 2011 02:12 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:08 gold_ wrote:On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote: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 ? 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. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. But they didn't say Naomi Cambell so there is no case. Actually, that's probably the case more so than anything else. Lawyer one "blah blah blah hurt Ms Campbell" Lawyer two "No your honor, we didn't mean *that* Naomi" Lawyer one "Yes you did! Evidence A, B and C" Lawyer two "No we didn't! Evidence D, E and F" And so on and so forth.
Actually, since Naomi Campbell is a "public figure", it doesn't matter whether they meant her or not. She doesn't have the same protections as "anonymous" people, as a "public figure".
Regardless, all this arguing about what you can and can't say is getting so ridiculous, it's going to have the opposite effect. People won't care about these sensitivities before long.
|
On June 02 2011 02:06 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:00 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:57 Kaitlin wrote:On June 02 2011 01:47 lorkac wrote:On June 02 2011 01:42 Kaitlin wrote: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 ? 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. I'm not sure what point you are making, but as I understand it, anything is a lawsuit for any reason because anyone can sue for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up, but it doesn't take much more than a filing to sue. Accuser goes to court and tries to file a sue. Accused shows up and says "sorry we'll pull down the ad" Judge says "cool beans" nothing filed. It's only a case when an understanding cannot be reached by the two parties and hence needs an adjudicator to smash small wooden plates with a tiny sledge. EDIT: In other words, there is no case if Cadbury simply accepts the terms and moves on. There is only a case because they think they are in the right to call a black model a chocolate bar. The accuser and accused don't just magically show up to court. The accuser files the lawsuit. That is what makes them the accuser and the accused, the accused. Then, the accused receives mail that they've been sued, and are instructed to respond. By the point in your example where it gets to the judge, things have already been filed. The very first thing to happen in any legal proceeding is for one party to file suit against the other. I'm not sure why we're even discussing this.
Filed is specifically meant "on record"
They don't "file things" that don't happen. Letters are sent out, people show up, and the case will be put on file if there is a case. If there isn't a case, it's thrown out. Not filed.
If you have been called in 10 times because 10 people tried to sue you and its thrown out 10 times, on record you haven't been sued. If someone asks "how many times was such and such sued" they would say "none" because it is not filed.
If it was filed and you won 10 times, the answer would be "He was sued 10 times and won 10 times."
|
On June 02 2011 02:05 Asjo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 01:35 Babyfactory wrote: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. Yes, sorry for not being clear on that. I don't mean to say that this issue only concerns USA or Americans. However, since a majority of this forum's population are Americans, the debate will likely revolve around the cultural difference I have mentioned, which has been highlighted in most of the posts supporting the lawsuit.
I figured as much. I was just getting disconcerted with the amount of focus that this has brought on American culture rather than British culture, as that should be the crux of the issue. The only reason America is involved is due to the very recent acquisition of Cadbury by Kraft; however, Cadbury still remains a British company, which is why the specifically chose a British Super Model... it would of been easier to prove "racism" if they had chosen Tyra Banks since its a reach outside of "their culture".
It's sad this topic has deviated the way it has, thread will probably be closed after some moderation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
