basically, Naomi Campbell is suing cadburys chocolate over a raicist advert that compared her to a chocolate bar. when i first looked at the advert I just thought that it was about her being a diva and nothing about her being black; it seems that its having a joke.
Later on in the article I read that the name "chocolate bar" is used to bully black kids in the schoolyard. if this is true then the ad could be considered racist, even though Cadburys probably didn't know that name "chocolate bar" name calling had been happening.
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?
Wow, really? Am I just insensitive for thinking that's not racist in the slightest? As OP said, the ad is clearly about her being a diva, she's seeing a race issue where there is none.
Eh... I don't think it's a racial advert. I think they felt Naomi Campbell had more pull for their advert and more popularity then Kate Moss. Additionally, Naomi is a little more exotic than Kate is, so it gives the statement a little more punch.
However, the more you think about it, it really does seem like it could be seen as racist, but I don't think we should focus on those subtle connections of a Chocolate Bar to a Black Person. I, honestly, think that the mentioning of it is what makes it racist, or else I wouldn't of thought otherwise. She might just want attention... she is a diva.
Just after money... Nothing racist in it, just once again making a fuss to get something. Hopefully she fails so we don't end up having even more PC BS.
On June 01 2011 20:21 Kickboxer wrote: Isn't she that pompous bitch who abused some saleslady over special privileges and shit? As far as I am concerned she can go eat a chainsaw.
A Chainsaw has too much fat, models are not allowed to eat those.
On topic: It looks a lot like a publicity stunt to get attention. She is probably searching for people doing something that could be interpreted as wrong and then sues them to get her name in the press.
Or she was just angry about being called a diva :p
Hey look a person's skin and a piece of candy have about the same color, and they're actually acknowledging that! Let's get to work and pull a racism claim out of that.
In the united states of stupid (no offense), this sure is racist.
On June 01 2011 20:32 Siphyo wrote: Hey look a person's skin and a piece of candy have about the same color, and they're actually acknowledging that! Let's get to work and pull a racism claim out of that.
In the united states of stupid (no offense), this sure is racist.
not in the least surprising, she really has gone off the deep end as of....well alot of years. There is nothing racist about this, if someone compared me to white chocolate I'd take it as a complement coz white chocolate is fucking tasty.
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:
I think this is just her trying to make headlines, I never even knew she was considered a "diva" in the first place I always just thought of her as extremely beautiful/sexy. Idk I'll let this one slide because shes so cute but no more calls to lawsuits Naomi or that card wont work on me! Tbh I don't think the company meant any harm at all, but what can you do she seems to just not like it maybe they should have just issued an apology/explanation and pulled the ad when this thing started. But I know one thing I love chocolate (not milk chocolate though just like starbucks and dark chocolate) and I love to look at Naomi Cambell so this entire ordeal has been a win/win for me.
in sweden we have theese chocolate balls that was always called neger(nigger)bollar(balls), but ofc that aint allowed any more for some quite good resons, just plain old choclate balls now.
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:
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Sooo... you've never heard about the thing with black people and fried chicken? (I think it's fried chicken I'm not sure I am for Aus and it's an american thing I believe)
But I think the advert is only racist if you are looking for something to be racist.
On June 01 2011 20:42 veljanov wrote: in sweden we have theese chocolate balls that was always called neger(nigger)bollar(balls), but ofc that aint allowed any more for some quite good resons, just plain old choclate balls now.
haha nice, we have something similar in germany, it's basically some cream with choclate over it so you can take it in the hand and it's called negerkuss ( niggerkiss )
While I don't see where the racism is, there might be a cultural conflict inbound. The best course of action for Cadbury PR is to explain that they didn't mean any harm through putting that advertisement (as in, they didn't aim to bully her in a public way) and didn't know / inadvertently blundered.
Obviously, none of them is at fault as both had some legitimate course of thinking. She took offense because, in her culture, there was this. Cadbury ain't American, it's British!
how is this racism? from wiki "Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities which are entirely due to their race, however defined, and which consequently justify those people being treated differently, both socially and legally."
in the worst case scenario, cadbury is making a joke about naomi having the same skin colour as a chocolate bar
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Sooo... you've never heard about the thing with black people and fried chicken? (I think it's fried chicken I'm not sure I am for Aus and it's an american thing I believe)
But I think the advert is only racist if you are looking for something to be racist.
is the original commercial,, and it has many people dancing while eating chicken,. Black people should be able to dance while eating chicken without it being seen as racist.
Some would even say if no black people were in the commercial it would be racist for not including any black people.
If an asian guy dances while eating noodles,, would that be racist because noodles as food is a part of asian culture? I'd say no..
They are just people dancing while eating something they tend to enjoy as a culture..
This seems reminiscent of the KFC ad which was pulled during the Australia/India cricket test match, because it was somehow racist for Indian cricketers to be offered KFC in an ad....
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
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.
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Ye because stereotyping only happens to people from a different racial background, not to people from uncommon backgrounds or whatever. Never has a kid been bullied because his parents are poor/crazy/farmers/whatever, and if it would happen it would in no way be comparable because it's whites bullying whites. DERP
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Hm,, i would say my neighbourhood is 80% people from Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey and such places.. And it has happened that i've been taunted for eating meat from swine,,because they don't. Growing up me and my fellow ¨white¨ people were always called potatoes(for reasons i still don't understand).
In school there has always been atleast a 40-60% ratio of people originally from where i live and people from other places, so i've spent most of my life in a place where i've racially been part of a minority,, and i have no issues with that.
There are worse things out there than people dancing.. Everything that in some way singles out a race of people is not racist,, it's when a race is seen as a lower being the racism really kicks in.
Culture is not the issue,, people are,, everything can be twisted to become negative.
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Ye because stereotyping only happens to people from a different racial background, not to people from uncommon backgrounds or whatever. Never has a kid been bullied because his parents are poor/crazy/farmers/whatever, and if it would happen it would in no way be comparable because it's whites bullying whites. DERP
Derp is right. how is your post in any way refuting my original argument?
He said those stereotypes arent insults and therefore not racist. Im saying stereotyping is bad even if it doesnt seem like an insult in and of itself. You also say stereotyping is bad. Wtf?
On June 01 2011 20:42 veljanov wrote: in sweden we have theese chocolate balls that was always called neger(nigger)bollar(balls), but ofc that aint allowed any more for some quite good resons, just plain old choclate balls now.
There was also a fuss about the "balls" part, so for a while every teacher and politically correct person told us they were now named "Chocolate kisses"
Also, with the name change, some people took the liberty of changing the recipy also, so alot of times negerbollar != chokladbollar, wich makes me bitter =/
On June 01 2011 20:56 Supamang wrote: but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Let me tell you something, kids (especially) will find the slightest anomaly in a person and bully them for that. And if it continues long enough, they'll make stuff up and pretend it's unique to the person they're bullying. Skinny in a room full of fat people? Only person wearing glasses? Only girl that doesn't have curly hair? Shortest person in class? Only blonde in the class? Ugly shirt? A week late with adopting the newest hairstyle? etc...
If it is this obvious that they were making reference to the fact that she was a Diva, idk why everyone is in a shitstorm about this being called racist.
Yes, it is an advertisement for a chocolate bar, that has nothing to do with this lady other than it apparently being a diva.
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Hm,, i would say my neighbourhood is 80% people from Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey and such places.. And it has happened that i've been taunted for eating meat from swine,,because they don't. Growing up me and my fellow ¨white¨ people were always called potatoes(for reasons i still don't understand).
In school there has always been atleast a 40-60% ratio of people originally from where i live and people from other places, so i've spent most of my life in a place where i've racially been part of a minority,, and i have no issues with that.
And there you have it. Youve been made fun of for things like that too. So how do you not understand that the "black people eating fried chicken" stereotype is not a flattering thing to see on TV?
Edit: oh and 40-60 is barely a minority. im talking about youre 1 of 5 people of that particular race so when all of the other people make fun of you for being what you are, you have no one to turn to for support.
Imaginary racism the new best way to ruin somebodys day since fake sexual harassment charges -.-
Only way racism is ever going to vanish is if the fools using it to sue people would spend more time contemplating the context of the "insult". Compared to a chocolate bar ? Man please they call her that on those worship style shows on VH1 and shit all day, now she's got a problem with it all of a sudden?
she will never get anything, she's not the only black Naomi over the world, although it's obvious she can't prouve she's the target... btw LOL racismament
God this reminds me when KFC forced a ban when an Australian ad showed a guy passing chicken around to a bunch of I think Windies. It was an overreaction and rather stupid. Much like this.
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Hm,, i would say my neighbourhood is 80% people from Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey and such places.. And it has happened that i've been taunted for eating meat from swine,,because they don't. Growing up me and my fellow ¨white¨ people were always called potatoes(for reasons i still don't understand).
In school there has always been atleast a 40-60% ratio of people originally from where i live and people from other places, so i've spent most of my life in a place where i've racially been part of a minority,, and i have no issues with that.
And there you have it. Youve been made fun of for things like that too. So how do you not understand that the "black people eating fried chicken" stereotype is not a flattering thing to see on TV?
Edit: oh and 40-60 is barely a minority. im talking about youre 1 of 5 people of that particular race so when all of the other people make fun of you for being what you are, you have no one to turn to for support.
That really sounds like you're forgeting what racism is man, skinny glasses wearing white guys feel stereotyped too, that's just how tv works and it happens because stereotypes do exist in real life.
Racism is when you get harassed by the cops and kept at the police station for 10 hours in italy because you were a romanian driving through on your way to spain Not comparing somebody to a cholocate bar, or showing a black guy eating chicken at TV.
what has it even got to do with the colour of a chocolate bar? it could be anything or anyone they are just saying that theres a new diva in town which happens to be a chocolate bar.
So we should just keep all black people from doing adverts now so the company cant be considered racists..... wait a minute.
Lol that commercial with the guy dancing is actually funny
However them using Naomi for chocolate brand is kind of wrong imo just like it would be for cracker commercials on white people. It's uncalled for rudeness in a commercial.
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Hm,, i would say my neighbourhood is 80% people from Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey and such places.. And it has happened that i've been taunted for eating meat from swine,,because they don't. Growing up me and my fellow ¨white¨ people were always called potatoes(for reasons i still don't understand).
In school there has always been atleast a 40-60% ratio of people originally from where i live and people from other places, so i've spent most of my life in a place where i've racially been part of a minority,, and i have no issues with that.
And there you have it. Youve been made fun of for things like that too. So how do you not understand that the "black people eating fried chicken" stereotype is not a flattering thing to see on TV?
Edit: oh and 40-60 is barely a minority. im talking about youre 1 of 5 people of that particular race so when all of the other people make fun of you for being what you are, you have no one to turn to for support.
That really sounds like you're forgeting what racism is man, skinny glasses wearing white guys feel stereotyped too, that's just how tv works and it happens because stereotypes do exist in real life.
Racism is when you get harassed by the cops and kept at the police station for 10 hours in italy because you were a romanian driving through on your way to spain Not comparing somebody to a cholocate bar, or showing a black guy eating chicken at TV.
Youre absolutely right man. I completely agree with you. Some dude calling you racial epithets or whatnot is a really pathetic form of racism at best and just immature name calling for most cases, but our argument wasnt really about racism per se.
I showed my "more mild" KFC black guy commercial, but this guy says that its nothing at all. From an objective standpoint, yea its not an insult to say black people like eating fried chicken. But in the US, people stereotype and make fun of black people (who knows how it became an insult, but somehow it did) for loving their fried chicken. Im saying that its a stereotype that white people have used as an insult, so its not "nothing". Its a mild racial stereotype that isnt the best thing to use in a commercial. Im also saying that its worse than the "chocolate to black people" connection that Naomi Campbell drew. thats all
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Hm,, i would say my neighbourhood is 80% people from Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey and such places.. And it has happened that i've been taunted for eating meat from swine,,because they don't. Growing up me and my fellow ¨white¨ people were always called potatoes(for reasons i still don't understand).
In school there has always been atleast a 40-60% ratio of people originally from where i live and people from other places, so i've spent most of my life in a place where i've racially been part of a minority,, and i have no issues with that.
And there you have it. Youve been made fun of for things like that too. So how do you not understand that the "black people eating fried chicken" stereotype is not a flattering thing to see on TV?
Edit: oh and 40-60 is barely a minority. im talking about youre 1 of 5 people of that particular race so when all of the other people make fun of you for being what you are, you have no one to turn to for support.
What you're talking about is bullying,, the type of people that would circle around one person and fuck with him are the kind of people who will turn anything into a negative to get to someone.
When you have no one to turn to the issue is not culture being used to taunt someone,, the issue is the people and the ones who.
No matter who you are, if you're alone you can always become a victim is the wrong people see you as one.
If these people didnt have chicken or rice to make fun of,,then they would find something else about a persons appearance, or his family,, his style,, his music,, his eyes,, hair,,skin.
People need to realize this,,culture is not racist,, it's the people that twist culture who are the racist ones.
Like any white guy has the right to get offended at things like that nowadays lol. At any rate it's nowhere near your link imo, since chocolate has no demeaning conotations as cracker does.
"Get that fucking cracker before he runs out" - "Cuff that fucking chocolate now !" Totaly different things man.
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Hm,, i would say my neighbourhood is 80% people from Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey and such places.. And it has happened that i've been taunted for eating meat from swine,,because they don't. Growing up me and my fellow ¨white¨ people were always called potatoes(for reasons i still don't understand).
In school there has always been atleast a 40-60% ratio of people originally from where i live and people from other places, so i've spent most of my life in a place where i've racially been part of a minority,, and i have no issues with that.
And there you have it. Youve been made fun of for things like that too. So how do you not understand that the "black people eating fried chicken" stereotype is not a flattering thing to see on TV?
Edit: oh and 40-60 is barely a minority. im talking about youre 1 of 5 people of that particular race so when all of the other people make fun of you for being what you are, you have no one to turn to for support.
What you're talking about is bullying,, the type of people that would circle around one person and fuck with him are the kind of people who will turn anything into a negative to get to someone.
When you have no one to turn to the issue is not culture being used to taunt someone,, the issue is the people and the ones who.
No matter who you are, if you're alone you can always become a victim is the wrong people see you as one.
If these people didnt have chicken or rice to make fun of,,then they would find something else about a persons appearance, or his family,, his style,, his music,, his eyes,, hair,,skin.
People need to realize this,,culture is not racist,, it's the people that twist culture who are the racist ones.
Fair enough man. And when people pick out black people eating fried chicken as the stereotype to use to bully someone, thats a problem right? Im gonna give you some slack since youre not from the US and you might not know about the "black people love fried chicken" stereotype.
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
On June 01 2011 20:17 funk100 wrote: ... even though Cadburys probably didn't know that name "chocolate bar" name calling had been happening.
The interesting question is that should Cadburys be considered responsible for the advert having implications they did not make the ad for?...?
How do you know that? If you want to get people's opinions, don't make such a biased representation of the story plz?
On June 01 2011 20:19 Jayme wrote: SO it's racist now to point out that someone has the same color skin as a chocolate bar?
Nope, but calling them one is. "Pointing out" is a ridiculous choice of words. They're not "pointing out" anything, they're making fun of her based on her skin color.
On June 01 2011 20:20 Megatronn wrote: This is just dumb, chocolate bar is now a racial slur?...
According to the article and the OP, it's not "now" a racial slur but has been one for some time. But you're right, it's dumb for the company to use it.
On June 01 2011 21:22 Cyba wrote: ... At any rate it's nowhere near your link imo, since chocolate has no demeaning conotations as cracker does.
...
No, none at all, except the minor implication that you're a cute lifeless object for others to fool around with.
So funny. In pretty much all Western societies there are ethnic minorities who are disadvantaged and discriminated against in all manners possible. They have a harder time finding a flat and a job, they're underrepresented in higher positions, they're poorer, they're imprisoned more, they're frequently treated like shit by some people for no reason other than their looks. And yet, here are our right-wingers claiming that anti-racism has gone too far. And they never notice anything.
But at least the name "Bliss" is appropriate, as we know what they say about ignorance.
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Hm,, i would say my neighbourhood is 80% people from Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey and such places.. And it has happened that i've been taunted for eating meat from swine,,because they don't. Growing up me and my fellow ¨white¨ people were always called potatoes(for reasons i still don't understand).
In school there has always been atleast a 40-60% ratio of people originally from where i live and people from other places, so i've spent most of my life in a place where i've racially been part of a minority,, and i have no issues with that.
And there you have it. Youve been made fun of for things like that too. So how do you not understand that the "black people eating fried chicken" stereotype is not a flattering thing to see on TV?
Edit: oh and 40-60 is barely a minority. im talking about youre 1 of 5 people of that particular race so when all of the other people make fun of you for being what you are, you have no one to turn to for support.
What you're talking about is bullying,, the type of people that would circle around one person and fuck with him are the kind of people who will turn anything into a negative to get to someone.
When you have no one to turn to the issue is not culture being used to taunt someone,, the issue is the people and the ones who.
No matter who you are, if you're alone you can always become a victim is the wrong people see you as one.
If these people didnt have chicken or rice to make fun of,,then they would find something else about a persons appearance, or his family,, his style,, his music,, his eyes,, hair,,skin.
People need to realize this,,culture is not racist,, it's the people that twist culture who are the racist ones.
Fair enough man. And when people pick out black people eating fried chicken as the stereotype to use to bully someone, thats a problem right? Im gonna give you some slack since youre not from the US and you might not know about the "black people love fried chicken" stereotype.
The thing is,, most stereotypes have some truth to them.
For example, dancing is and has always been a part of the many african cultures, african americans have it in them because many of them ar part of a family that was once shipped over from africa to be slaves. So a sterotypical african loves to dance when they're happy.
Now i've traveled around africa a bit and so many of them dance when they're happy, and it is honestly one of the greatest things i've seen. But if i twist it,, i can say,,africans dance like savages, they talk like monkeys and they are all beneath me.
I know about the ¨black people love fried chicken¨ stereotype. Now answer me this: Do many black people like fried chicken? Is there some truth to this stereotype? Most likely. Do all black people like fried chicken? No, but most if not all stereotypes are exaggerated versions of a fact.
It's important to separate stereotypes from prejudice.
The stereotype that says ¨all black people love fried chicken¨ Really only means that many black people like to eat fried chicken, and that is most likely true for many areas in the united states. But when you hear the stereotypical phrase and think that it is an absolute fact,, it becomes prejudice, and from there it becomes racist.
The real issue is in the way people think about the stereotypes, not the stereotypes themselves.
Stereotypes are there to say,, oh hey,, these people tend to have that in common,, they are not meant to point out all sorts of things as fact, that is what prejudice does.
Ms. 'Cambell' is clearly choosing to be offended by this advertisement. It's not offensive, and this thread wouldn't exist in a world with common sense...
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:
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.
Firstly all I see is "Naomi" implied or not it isn't her full name. Secondly she one of the most vile disgusting human person on the planet. We don't need her kind of thuggery polluting the earth in general. She's obviously displaying her own overt racism by even being offended by this.
chocolate bar as a diva replacing naomi jus sounds wrong imo. who came up with this idea?? suggesting chocolate is sexy and luxicrious better than a model is kinda offensive too and adding diva is like labeling a person which they r not.
On June 01 2011 20:42 veljanov wrote: in sweden we have theese chocolate balls that was always called neger(nigger)bollar(balls), but ofc that aint allowed any more for some quite good resons, just plain old choclate balls now.
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:
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
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Hm,, i would say my neighbourhood is 80% people from Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey and such places.. And it has happened that i've been taunted for eating meat from swine,,because they don't. Growing up me and my fellow ¨white¨ people were always called potatoes(for reasons i still don't understand).
In school there has always been atleast a 40-60% ratio of people originally from where i live and people from other places, so i've spent most of my life in a place where i've racially been part of a minority,, and i have no issues with that.
And there you have it. Youve been made fun of for things like that too. So how do you not understand that the "black people eating fried chicken" stereotype is not a flattering thing to see on TV?
Edit: oh and 40-60 is barely a minority. im talking about youre 1 of 5 people of that particular race so when all of the other people make fun of you for being what you are, you have no one to turn to for support.
What you're talking about is bullying,, the type of people that would circle around one person and fuck with him are the kind of people who will turn anything into a negative to get to someone.
When you have no one to turn to the issue is not culture being used to taunt someone,, the issue is the people and the ones who.
No matter who you are, if you're alone you can always become a victim is the wrong people see you as one.
If these people didnt have chicken or rice to make fun of,,then they would find something else about a persons appearance, or his family,, his style,, his music,, his eyes,, hair,,skin.
People need to realize this,,culture is not racist,, it's the people that twist culture who are the racist ones.
Fair enough man. And when people pick out black people eating fried chicken as the stereotype to use to bully someone, thats a problem right? Im gonna give you some slack since youre not from the US and you might not know about the "black people love fried chicken" stereotype.
The thing is,, most stereotypes have some truth to them.
For example, dancing is and has always been a part of the many african cultures, african americans have it in them because many of them ar part of a family that was once shipped over from africa to be slaves. So a sterotypical african loves to dance when they're happy.
Now i've traveled around africa a bit and so many of them dance when they're happy, and it is honestly one of the greatest things i've seen. But if i twist it,, i can say,,africans dance like savages, they talk like monkeys and they are all beneath me.
I know about the ¨black people love fried chicken¨ stereotype. Now answer me this: Do many black people like fried chicken? Is there some truth to this stereotype? Most likely. Do all black people like fried chicken? No, but most if not all stereotypes are exaggerated versions of a fact.
It's important to separate stereotypes from prejudice.
The stereotype that says ¨all black people love fried chicken¨ Really only means that many black people like to eat fried chicken, and that is most likely true for many areas in the united states. But when you hear the stereotypical phrase and think that it is an absolute fact,, it becomes prejudice, and from there it becomes racist.
The real issue is in the way people think about the stereotypes, not the stereotypes themselves.
Stereotypes are there to say,, oh hey,, these people tend to have that in common,, they are not meant to point out all sorts of things as fact, that is what prejudice does.
Dude, I dont know why were even arguing. I agree with most of your points. The only thing we disagree on is that goofy commercial. You said its not racist at all. I agree to some extent. People make fun of black people for eating fried chicken here so I think its very mildly offensive, but still more offensive than the thing Naomi Campbell is whining about.
My whole post was to point out how ridiculous Naomi's complaint was. I was posting a barely offensive video and saying it was still more offensive than Naomi's commercial. It was mostly an excuse to post a video I found to be hilarious. And somehow i get a bunch of white people to bitch about me about being hypersensitive. wtf is up with that?
EDIT: Im gonna disagree with something you said. I think stereotypes in and of themselves are not good. It dehumanizes a group of people by slightly suggesting that they lack individualism. Its demeaning when people think they know a lot about you just because youre a certain race. Its best to get to know people on a case by case basis.
On June 01 2011 20:42 veljanov wrote: in sweden we have theese chocolate balls that was always called neger(nigger)bollar(balls), but ofc that aint allowed any more for some quite good resons, just plain old choclate balls now.
It's actually "negroballs" not niggerballs.
In my middle school everyone was looking forward to the lunch break to play a satisfying game of "nigger". Even the black kids loved nigger.
It's Naomi Campbell's right to sue I guess, but she should lighten up.
On June 01 2011 22:15 bonifaceviii wrote: Took blood diamonds as a gift from an African warlord, complains about a chocolate bar advertisement calling her a diva.
yeah...
yeah, makes you wonder if it would have been different had they just sent some chocolate to her ;D
On June 01 2011 20:19 Jayme wrote: SO it's racist now to point out that someone has the same color skin as a chocolate bar?
Nope, but calling them one is. "Pointing out" is a ridiculous choice of words. They're not "pointing out" anything, they're making fun of her based on her skin color.
On June 01 2011 20:20 Megatronn wrote: This is just dumb, chocolate bar is now a racial slur?...
According to the article and the OP, it's not "now" a racial slur but has been one for some time. But you're right, it's dumb for the company to use it.
On June 01 2011 21:22 Cyba wrote: ... At any rate it's nowhere near your link imo, since chocolate has no demeaning conotations as cracker does.
...
No, none at all, except the minor implication that you're a cute lifeless object for others to fool around with.
So funny. In pretty much all Western societies there are ethnic minorities who are disadvantaged and discriminated against in all manners possible. They have a harder time finding a flat and a job, they're underrepresented in higher positions, they're poorer, they're imprisoned more, they're frequently treated like shit by some people for no reason other than their looks. And yet, here are our right-wingers claiming that anti-racism has gone too far. And they never notice anything.
But at least the name "Bliss" is appropriate, as we know what they say about ignorance.
Only making fun of her part was calling joining her name in the same phrase as diva. Your entire post is the quintessence of overreacting to something innocent.
On the one hand I don't really agree that there's anything to take offense over...
On the other hand, Cadburry should have seen that coming a million miles away. As much as we like to think we're beyond racism in this country people are still very sensitive to anything that could possibly be construed as being racially motivated. We're also spectacularly litigious and unnaturally obsessed with political correctness.
So yeah...get over yourself Naomi but at the same time...Cadburry = derp.
It's got nothing to do with the colour of the chocolate bar. She's completely missed the point and then taken it beyond far. Holy fuck are people stupid.
On June 01 2011 22:24 Albrithe wrote: Don't worry supamang, you know you're right. The video you posted is hardly racist, but it's still more racist than the topic at hand.
Thank you...finally someone gets my original post. And it took someone on the same continent to do so.
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Hm,, i would say my neighbourhood is 80% people from Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey and such places.. And it has happened that i've been taunted for eating meat from swine,,because they don't. Growing up me and my fellow ¨white¨ people were always called potatoes(for reasons i still don't understand).
In school there has always been atleast a 40-60% ratio of people originally from where i live and people from other places, so i've spent most of my life in a place where i've racially been part of a minority,, and i have no issues with that.
And there you have it. Youve been made fun of for things like that too. So how do you not understand that the "black people eating fried chicken" stereotype is not a flattering thing to see on TV?
Edit: oh and 40-60 is barely a minority. im talking about youre 1 of 5 people of that particular race so when all of the other people make fun of you for being what you are, you have no one to turn to for support.
What you're talking about is bullying,, the type of people that would circle around one person and fuck with him are the kind of people who will turn anything into a negative to get to someone.
When you have no one to turn to the issue is not culture being used to taunt someone,, the issue is the people and the ones who.
No matter who you are, if you're alone you can always become a victim is the wrong people see you as one.
If these people didnt have chicken or rice to make fun of,,then they would find something else about a persons appearance, or his family,, his style,, his music,, his eyes,, hair,,skin.
People need to realize this,,culture is not racist,, it's the people that twist culture who are the racist ones.
Fair enough man. And when people pick out black people eating fried chicken as the stereotype to use to bully someone, thats a problem right? Im gonna give you some slack since youre not from the US and you might not know about the "black people love fried chicken" stereotype.
The thing is,, most stereotypes have some truth to them.
For example, dancing is and has always been a part of the many african cultures, african americans have it in them because many of them ar part of a family that was once shipped over from africa to be slaves. So a sterotypical african loves to dance when they're happy.
Now i've traveled around africa a bit and so many of them dance when they're happy, and it is honestly one of the greatest things i've seen. But if i twist it,, i can say,,africans dance like savages, they talk like monkeys and they are all beneath me.
I know about the ¨black people love fried chicken¨ stereotype. Now answer me this: Do many black people like fried chicken? Is there some truth to this stereotype? Most likely. Do all black people like fried chicken? No, but most if not all stereotypes are exaggerated versions of a fact.
It's important to separate stereotypes from prejudice.
The stereotype that says ¨all black people love fried chicken¨ Really only means that many black people like to eat fried chicken, and that is most likely true for many areas in the united states. But when you hear the stereotypical phrase and think that it is an absolute fact,, it becomes prejudice, and from there it becomes racist.
The real issue is in the way people think about the stereotypes, not the stereotypes themselves.
Stereotypes are there to say,, oh hey,, these people tend to have that in common,, they are not meant to point out all sorts of things as fact, that is what prejudice does.
EDIT: Im gonna disagree with something you said. I think stereotypes in and of themselves are not good. It dehumanizes a group of people by slightly suggesting that they lack individualism. Its demeaning when people think they know a lot about you just because youre a certain race. Its best to get to know people on a case by case basis.
That's not realistic. Every day-to-day interaction you have with people you don't actually know is driven and based upon experiences with other people as well as stereotypes. Say that I did a major demo yesterday to upper-management. I will have used many stereotypes of upper-management as a process for determining the content and target audience of my demo. I am not directly familiar with my CEO, but I know that CEOs are likely going to want to see things that provide value to the business. I'm stereotyping my CEO as someone who doesn't understand or care about technical stuff. I do that because it's all I got to go off of.
You send your new girlfriend flowers. Women liking flowers is a stereotype. You might ask her friends, but you don't know if they'd spoil the surprise. My wife actually doesn't much care for flowers ( prefers other stuff ).
Social interaction is driven by stereotypes - the problem with a stereotype is when someone uses a stereotype as if it were a justification of a subjective point of view (Black people like dancing, so they're dumb!) or when someone incorrectly assigns a stereotype to a group of people and believes it to be fact (I got mugged by an Italian; therefore, all Italians are thugs!). Stereotypes in and of themselves are a social mechanism for survival. Like all tools, there are people who abuse and misuse stereotypes.
In short, categorically stating that all stereotypes are bad is equally bad.
By that logic Blizzard Entertainment is racist because people use one of its Portaits in-game purely to intimidate other players, implying that Blizzard had knowledge of this beforehand. Can you guess which one?
My first thought on the matter was something along the lines of "choclate is delicious", so what is she complaining about? At best, it could be positive discrimination, as in "black people are good dancers" or the infamous "Latino lover".
However, my opinion doesn't matter here. I'm white, so I can afford to neglect possible issues of discrimination against black people. That's why I need those at stake to tell me what's wrong... same as for discrimination vs. migrants, homosexuals, women, elderly, etc.
I think generally its wrong to throw someones name into an advertisement without consulting them. No opinion on the racism of calling someone a chocolate bar, or a diva... (8)a diva is the female version of a hustla(8)
Shes blowing this out of porportion. The advert was comparing her to a diva - which is exactly what she is (and is acting like).
However, anytime people throw around the "racism" word - companies start thinking about their bottom line and I am sure they will retract and issue a statement.
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:
This one is extremely mild,, as in not racist at all.. It's just a guy dancing while eating chicken... *sigh*
Its pretty interesting actually. Things that dont seem like insults will become insults when 90% of people around you are making fun of you because of it. Eating rice for most of my meals never seemed like a bad thing until most of the kids around me started pointing out that difference in culture in a not so nice way.
but let me guess, youre a white guy living in a predominantly white country. you would never understand what its like having the people around you making fun of your culture and drawing out stereotypes
Hm,, i would say my neighbourhood is 80% people from Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey and such places.. And it has happened that i've been taunted for eating meat from swine,,because they don't. Growing up me and my fellow ¨white¨ people were always called potatoes(for reasons i still don't understand).
In school there has always been atleast a 40-60% ratio of people originally from where i live and people from other places, so i've spent most of my life in a place where i've racially been part of a minority,, and i have no issues with that.
And there you have it. Youve been made fun of for things like that too. So how do you not understand that the "black people eating fried chicken" stereotype is not a flattering thing to see on TV?
Edit: oh and 40-60 is barely a minority. im talking about youre 1 of 5 people of that particular race so when all of the other people make fun of you for being what you are, you have no one to turn to for support.
What you're talking about is bullying,, the type of people that would circle around one person and fuck with him are the kind of people who will turn anything into a negative to get to someone.
When you have no one to turn to the issue is not culture being used to taunt someone,, the issue is the people and the ones who.
No matter who you are, if you're alone you can always become a victim is the wrong people see you as one.
If these people didnt have chicken or rice to make fun of,,then they would find something else about a persons appearance, or his family,, his style,, his music,, his eyes,, hair,,skin.
People need to realize this,,culture is not racist,, it's the people that twist culture who are the racist ones.
Fair enough man. And when people pick out black people eating fried chicken as the stereotype to use to bully someone, thats a problem right? Im gonna give you some slack since youre not from the US and you might not know about the "black people love fried chicken" stereotype.
The thing is,, most stereotypes have some truth to them.
For example, dancing is and has always been a part of the many african cultures, african americans have it in them because many of them ar part of a family that was once shipped over from africa to be slaves. So a sterotypical african loves to dance when they're happy.
Now i've traveled around africa a bit and so many of them dance when they're happy, and it is honestly one of the greatest things i've seen. But if i twist it,, i can say,,africans dance like savages, they talk like monkeys and they are all beneath me.
I know about the ¨black people love fried chicken¨ stereotype. Now answer me this: Do many black people like fried chicken? Is there some truth to this stereotype? Most likely. Do all black people like fried chicken? No, but most if not all stereotypes are exaggerated versions of a fact.
It's important to separate stereotypes from prejudice.
The stereotype that says ¨all black people love fried chicken¨ Really only means that many black people like to eat fried chicken, and that is most likely true for many areas in the united states. But when you hear the stereotypical phrase and think that it is an absolute fact,, it becomes prejudice, and from there it becomes racist.
The real issue is in the way people think about the stereotypes, not the stereotypes themselves.
Stereotypes are there to say,, oh hey,, these people tend to have that in common,, they are not meant to point out all sorts of things as fact, that is what prejudice does.
EDIT: Im gonna disagree with something you said. I think stereotypes in and of themselves are not good. It dehumanizes a group of people by slightly suggesting that they lack individualism. Its demeaning when people think they know a lot about you just because youre a certain race. Its best to get to know people on a case by case basis.
That's not realistic. Every day-to-day interaction you have with people you don't actually know is driven and based upon experiences with other people as well as stereotypes. Say that I did a major demo yesterday to upper-management. I will have used many stereotypes of upper-management as a process for determining the content and target audience of my demo. I am not directly familiar with my CEO, but I know that CEOs are likely going to want to see things that provide value to the business. I'm stereotyping my CEO as someone who doesn't understand or care about technical stuff. I do that because it's all I got to go off of.
You send your new girlfriend flowers. Women liking flowers is a stereotype. You might ask her friends, but you don't know if they'd spoil the surprise. My wife actually doesn't much care for flowers ( prefers other stuff ).
Social interaction is driven by stereotypes - the problem with a stereotype is when someone uses a stereotype as if it were a justification of a subjective point of view (Black people like dancing, so they're dumb!) or when someone incorrectly assigns a stereotype to a group of people and believes it to be fact (I got mugged by an Italian; therefore, all Italians are thugs!). Stereotypes in and of themselves are a social mechanism for survival. Like all tools, there are people who abuse and misuse stereotypes.
In short, categorically stating that all stereotypes are bad is equally bad.
Ugh, I really dont feel like getting into this discussion right now but i honestly dont think that me disliking stereotypes is "equally as bad as" someone disliking or stereotyping a particular race. Maybe i should have specified what stereotypes im referring to, namely stereotypes of things people cant change (women, Mexicans, homosexuals, etc)
Yea stereotyping is a natural human mechanism. People like to use their experiences to learn lessons and prepare themselves better for the future. When it comes to learning from your past mistakes, you can "stereotype" situations, objects, or whatever to try to better prepare yourself. Im going to argue that people are complex enough that stereotyping personality traits based on superficial things like race or gender isnt realistic either. You can try, but you will inevitably be wrong many times and offend many people by suggesting that they mindlessly follow an arbitrary trend because they were born as a *fill in the blank*.
Seems like bullshaz. I half get the impression that she's stirring the race issue because it's 'hot-button' and will make cadbury pull the ad or risk damaging their image. When really she's suing because she's a bitch and doesn't want them to so obviously yet indirectly refer to her as a diva without her getting a cut, or at all.
In other news, there is now nothing you can compare 'insert current socially acceptable term for people from an african decent' to in fear of rasism comments.
This would all be fine, if they also didn't complain about 'insert current socially acceptable term for people from an african decent' not being in commercials or other media.
Its a lose lose situation really. Rasism is a really strong word, but its getting abused to hell in these last years. Its going to lose power if people just start using it for everything they can get an advantage out of.
In my opinion, racism involves HATRED... Which is why it's so insulting to people. Hatred for being of a specific class or background but still a human being. Racism has been broadened to include things like stereotypical jokes, color specific jokes. Too me, I just laugh at this. I'm French okay, I lived in ontario for 7 years, You would be suprised how many Europeans just love those french racist Jokes. Let me say, at first I didn't even get the point of those jokes, but it didn't phase me... But let's be honest, if you feel insulted and call it "Racism" Not only are you actually wrong because there only one "race" of human beings. You're wasting your time bottomg line.
I really have no idea how she or anyone could get offended, or feel that being called a chocolate bar is fucking racist.
If someone called me a Cadbury Egg. I would streight chuckle. LAME!
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:
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".
Not racist, but should be pulled anyways because it's so hurtful towards divas. Divas like Naomi Campbell work hard to project a certain image, often forgoing meaningful personal relationships and friendships. The fact that a mere piece of chocolate can come along and simply supplant Naomi as a diva is incredibly insensitive.
Isn't this more of a TMZ story, is that where you got it? why would anyone here care about this? the ad is obviously not racist and most people here only know of her for throwing phones at people.
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:
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
It seems majority of the responses to this topic are just smug users giving their own opinions on political correctness and racism. I've had difficulty finding a response to reply to which actually acknowledges all the content in the article.
Anyways, the article clearly states that 'chocolate bar' is used as a racial slur in schools. I think the insensitivity of comparing her to a chocolate bar in this case is pretty clear.
Is it racist? I don't know, that's a tough thing to define. Is it insensitive? Obviously.
On June 01 2011 23:58 Befree wrote: It seems majority of the responses to this topic are just smug users giving their own opinions on political correctness and racism. I've had difficulty finding a response to reply to which actually acknowledges all the content in the article.
Anyways, the article clearly states that 'chocolate bar' is used as a racial slur in schools. I think the insensitivity of comparing her to a chocolate bar in this case is pretty clear.
Is it racist? I don't know, that's a tough thing to define. Is it insensitive? Obviously.
No, they were comparing her to a diva and she's acting like one.
It's just stupid, people call everything 'racist' nowadays.
You know what's racist? Discriminating people based on skin colour. Comparing a black person with a chocolate bar is not, neither is comparing a white person with milk.
On June 01 2011 23:58 Befree wrote: It seems majority of the responses to this topic are just smug users giving their own opinions on political correctness and racism. I've had difficulty finding a response to reply to which actually acknowledges all the content in the article.
Anyways, the article clearly states that 'chocolate bar' is used as a racial slur in schools. I think the insensitivity of comparing her to a chocolate bar in this case is pretty clear.
Is it racist? I don't know, that's a tough thing to define. Is it insensitive? Obviously.
No, they were comparing her to a diva and she's acting like one.
... and the smug remarks continue.
Just because it's unintentional doesn't mean it's insensitive like Befree said.
Is she in it for the money? We'll never know but obviously ( or obliviously by looking at this thread) this advert is something that could be offensive to certain people.
On June 01 2011 20:42 veljanov wrote: in sweden we have theese chocolate balls that was always called neger(nigger)bollar(balls), but ofc that aint allowed any more for some quite good resons, just plain old choclate balls now.
haha nice, we have something similar in germany, it's basically some cream with choclate over it so you can take it in the hand and it's called negerkuss ( niggerkiss )
To be correct the dutch word "Neger" translates into the english Negro.
The dutch version of Nigger = Nikker. Not many people know that since it's an incredibly out-dated word in the dutch language but it stuck around in english so people tend to think that neger = nigger wich isn't accurate.
So the product in question would translate into negrokiss. People would probably still be a bit hestitant about that name but it's not as outright offensive as niggerkiss.
I don't think negro is considered offensive but it's not as political as "African American".
On June 01 2011 20:42 veljanov wrote: in sweden we have theese chocolate balls that was always called neger(nigger)bollar(balls), but ofc that aint allowed any more for some quite good resons, just plain old choclate balls now.
haha nice, we have something similar in germany, it's basically some cream with choclate over it so you can take it in the hand and it's called negerkuss ( niggerkiss )
To be correct the dutch word "Neger" translates into the english Negro.
The dutch version of Nigger = Nikker. Not many people know that since it's an incredibly out-dated word in the dutch language but it stuck around in english so people tend to think that neger = nigger wich isn't accurate.
So the product in question would translate into negrokiss. People would probably still be a bit hestitant about that name but it's not as outright offensive as niggerkiss.
I don't think negro is considered offensive but it's not as political as "African American".
Negro is a word that's deprived from the word "black," I think it's more correctly translated into "Black kiss." I wouldn't know for certain though
On June 01 2011 23:58 Befree wrote: It seems majority of the responses to this topic are just smug users giving their own opinions on political correctness and racism. I've had difficulty finding a response to reply to which actually acknowledges all the content in the article.
Anyways, the article clearly states that 'chocolate bar' is used as a racial slur in schools. I think the insensitivity of comparing her to a chocolate bar in this case is pretty clear.
Is it racist? I don't know, that's a tough thing to define. Is it insensitive? Obviously.
No, they were comparing her to a diva and she's acting like one.
... and the smug remarks continue.
Just because it's unintentional doesn't mean it's insensitive like Befree said.
Is she in it for the money? We'll never know but obviously ( or obliviously by looking at this thread) this advert is something that could be offensive to certain people.
EVERYTHING is offensive to certain people, so where does this idiotic hypocritical country draw the line?
The problem is not that the ad is racist or not--that's a purely subjective term anyway. Because what matters is not the intent of the ad, but the reception of the ad. The fact that someone found it offensive for whatever reason suggests that it hits a negative tone. That must be acknowledged and amended.
They could apologize, retract, replace, whatever.
How the problem is resolved is irrelevant much like the intent of the ad is irrelevant. That someone was insulted, is relevant. That someone was hurt, is relevant. And yes, there are things out there that is more racist than this.
But if someone raped your sister to near death, you don't want the police to say "well, they could have killed her but didn't, I think we should give them a break because it *could* have been worse."
Is Naomi in the right? Its irrelevant whether or not she's in the right. That's something she and the company can decide in court. Should Naomi be putting her attention towards more "important" things? Possibly. I could be out in the world, feeding the homeless and walking old ladies across wide streets instead of posting in a forum. We all *could* be doing something more important. This is something important and manageable for Naomi.
Personally, I think it's brave of her to be willing to fight back as much as she can--even if she is picking a very *easy* fight. She's not exactly starting a nationwide campaign to end racism, she's just doing her part to make it be known that people don't like being dictated to as merely objects. Calling her a Diva is just as insulting as calling her a chocolate bar, as calling her a food item, as calling her a product meant to be stripped naked and consumed for the general purpose of satiating hunger. More likely than not, she's been insulted by stuff like this for the past several years and this one was just the final straw.
On June 01 2011 23:58 Befree wrote: It seems majority of the responses to this topic are just smug users giving their own opinions on political correctness and racism. I've had difficulty finding a response to reply to which actually acknowledges all the content in the article.
Anyways, the article clearly states that 'chocolate bar' is used as a racial slur in schools. I think the insensitivity of comparing her to a chocolate bar in this case is pretty clear.
Is it racist? I don't know, that's a tough thing to define. Is it insensitive? Obviously.
No, they were comparing her to a diva and she's acting like one.
... and the smug remarks continue.
Just because it's unintentional doesn't mean it's insensitive like Befree said.
Is she in it for the money? We'll never know but obviously ( or obliviously by looking at this thread) this advert is something that could be offensive to certain people.
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."
To be honest I stared at the advertisement for 5 minutes trying to figure out what was racist about it before deciding to give up and read the OP. Seriously, a chocolate bar? Its things like this that just fuel racism even more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
An example of why I don't worry about what is politically correct. I don't intentionally offend people, but I don't keep track of all the silly new rules that people come up with every day. Chocolate bars are now taboo ?
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.
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?
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:
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".
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.
I don't know who Naomi Cambell is, but she sounds like she has a chip on her shoulder. I don't know why anyone would want to get the racist Al Sharpton involved. He is far to pro-African American to be a racial activist, you gotta be more racially neutral to be a racial activist. Meaning every form of racism must get your attention, not just racism towards African Americans. My opinion, eat if you don't like it.
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:
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.
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.
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.
The problem in the American and, in a sense, the global culture is the subconscious norm to understand "white" or "lightness of skin" to be superior and to understand "dark skin" as inferior.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 01:37 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 01:37 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 01:37 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...
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 01:07 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 00:47 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 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 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 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?
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"
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 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 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 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 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.
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.
They already don't care about it. That's why these discussions happen.
Someone says "should we give a damn" Someone else replies "we should shouldn't we?" A third party says "Doesn't really matter anyway, lets just ignore it"
If people cared, discussion wouldn't happen because they all agree anyway. The fact is that most people don't care and worse--don't want to care. They don't want to think about it, they don't want to be part of it because its hard and insulting and weird to deal with. People would rather be apathetic and just let the shit sort itself.
Which is okay--I'm perfectly okay with people doing that so long as they know they're doing it.
First, they didn't use her last name. I can't imagine how she expects to prove beyond doubt this is specifically directed at her, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Second, in the bottom right of the ad it talks about the chocolate being pampered, it's comparing them as Divas and their royal treatment not because of color. Third, Naomi is clearly mentally unstable IMO. She's been charged with assault more times than I have, and I'm an Irish guy who likes to drink and fight (shocking I know).
From her page on WIKI "Between 1998 and 2008, Campbell was accused ten times of committing acts of violence against employees, associates, and, in one instance, police officers. In 2000, Campbell pleaded guilty in Toronto to assaulting her personal assistant Georgina Galanis with a cell phone. Campbell paid Galanis an undisclosed sum and agreed to attend anger management classes; her record was cleared in exchange for her expressing remorse.[40][41]
By 2006, eight other employees and associates had come forward with claims of abuse: secretary Vanessa Frisbee claimed she was physically assaulted by Campbell, housekeeper Millicent Burton claimed Campbell had slapped, kicked, and scratched her, assistant Simone Craig claimed Campbell held her hostage and threw a phone at her, housekeeper Ana Scolavino claimed Campbell threw a BlackBerry personal organiser at her, maid Gaby Gibson claimed Campbell hit her and called her names, and assistant Amanda Brack claimed Campbell slapped and beat her with a BlackBerry.[13][41][42] Campbell's drug therapist claimed Campbell scratched her face during a counselling session.[41] Actress Yvonne Sciò claimed Campbell left her "covered in blood" after an altercation at a Rome hotel.[41] Sciò said, "She punched me in the face. She was like Mike Tyson."[41] In 2005, Campbell was photographed wearing a Chip and Pepper T-shirt that read "Naomi Hit Me...and I Loved It".[13]
In 2007, Campbell pleaded guilty in New York to assaulting her former housekeeper Ana Scolavino.[8][13] She was sentenced to pay Scolavino's medical expenses, attend an anger management program, and perform five days of community service with New York's sanitation department.[13] She attended her community service wearing designer outfits, including fedoras, furs, and—upon completion of her sentence—a silver sequined Dolce & Gabbana gown.[7][13] Campbell detailed her community service experience in a W feature titled "The Naomi Diaries", in which she wrote, "I keep on sweeping. I'm getting very protective of my pile of rubbish—kind of the way I feel about my Hermès handbag."[13] That same year, Campbell settled the lawsuits brought by actress Yvonne Sciò and her former assistant Amanda Brack.[43][13] She spoofed herself in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial, directed by Zach Braff, which showed her breaking her heel while gardening and throwing it through a window.[13]
In 2008, Campbell pleaded guilty to assaulting two police officers at Heathrow Airport in London.[8] She had spat at the officers following an argument about her lost luggage.[13] Campbell was sentenced to 200 hours of community service and fined $4,600.[8] She was banned for life from British Airways.[7] In 2009, Campbell settled the lawsuit brought by her former maid Gaby Gibson.[44]"
So comparing a black persons skin color to chocolate is racist and bad, beating people however? Yeah, that's acceptable.
She doesn't deserve the attention and should be promptly ignored. By the way, there is no law that says you can't have racist advertising (as far as I know) that would probably interfere with the freedom of the press, and the freedom of speech.
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 02:24 Reborn8u wrote: First, they didn't use her last name. I can't imagine how she expects to prove beyond doubt this is specifically directed at her, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Second, in the bottom right of the ad it talks about the chocolate being pampered, it's comparing them as Divas and their royal treatment not because of color. Third, Naomi is clearly mentally unstable IMO. She's been charged with assault more times than I have, and I'm an Irish guy who likes to drink and fight (shocking I know).
From her page on WIKI "Between 1998 and 2008, Campbell was accused ten times of committing acts of violence against employees, associates, and, in one instance, police officers. In 2000, Campbell pleaded guilty in Toronto to assaulting her personal assistant Georgina Galanis with a cell phone. Campbell paid Galanis an undisclosed sum and agreed to attend anger management classes; her record was cleared in exchange for her expressing remorse.[40][41]
By 2006, eight other employees and associates had come forward with claims of abuse: secretary Vanessa Frisbee claimed she was physically assaulted by Campbell, housekeeper Millicent Burton claimed Campbell had slapped, kicked, and scratched her, assistant Simone Craig claimed Campbell held her hostage and threw a phone at her, housekeeper Ana Scolavino claimed Campbell threw a BlackBerry personal organiser at her, maid Gaby Gibson claimed Campbell hit her and called her names, and assistant Amanda Brack claimed Campbell slapped and beat her with a BlackBerry.[13][41][42] Campbell's drug therapist claimed Campbell scratched her face during a counselling session.[41] Actress Yvonne Sciò claimed Campbell left her "covered in blood" after an altercation at a Rome hotel.[41] Sciò said, "She punched me in the face. She was like Mike Tyson."[41] In 2005, Campbell was photographed wearing a Chip and Pepper T-shirt that read "Naomi Hit Me...and I Loved It".[13]
In 2007, Campbell pleaded guilty in New York to assaulting her former housekeeper Ana Scolavino.[8][13] She was sentenced to pay Scolavino's medical expenses, attend an anger management program, and perform five days of community service with New York's sanitation department.[13] She attended her community service wearing designer outfits, including fedoras, furs, and—upon completion of her sentence—a silver sequined Dolce & Gabbana gown.[7][13] Campbell detailed her community service experience in a W feature titled "The Naomi Diaries", in which she wrote, "I keep on sweeping. I'm getting very protective of my pile of rubbish—kind of the way I feel about my Hermès handbag."[13] That same year, Campbell settled the lawsuits brought by actress Yvonne Sciò and her former assistant Amanda Brack.[43][13] She spoofed herself in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial, directed by Zach Braff, which showed her breaking her heel while gardening and throwing it through a window.[13]
In 2008, Campbell pleaded guilty to assaulting two police officers at Heathrow Airport in London.[8] She had spat at the officers following an argument about her lost luggage.[13] Campbell was sentenced to 200 hours of community service and fined $4,600.[8] She was banned for life from British Airways.[7] In 2009, Campbell settled the lawsuit brought by her former maid Gaby Gibson.[44]"
So comparing a black persons skin color to chocolate is racist and bad, beating people however? Yeah, that's acceptable.
She doesn't deserve the attention and should be promptly ignored.
I agree with your opinion of Naomi's character.
But what your suggesting is that if someone not Naomi sued who was more reputable (lets say martin luther king for shits and giggles) then this lawsuit would be "more legit" just because you like the accuser more. Shouldn't the main thinking be "is this lawsuit legit no matter who does the accusing?"
On June 01 2011 20:21 Kickboxer wrote: Isn't she that pompous bitch who abused some saleslady over special privileges and shit? As far as I am concerned she can go eat a chainsaw.
On June 02 2011 02:24 Reborn8u wrote: First, they didn't use her last name. I can't imagine how she expects to prove beyond doubt this is specifically directed at her, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Second, in the bottom right of the ad it talks about the chocolate being pampered, it's comparing them as Divas and their royal treatment not because of color. Third, Naomi is clearly mentally unstable IMO. She's been charged with assault more times than I have, and I'm an Irish guy who likes to drink and fight (shocking I know).
From her page on WIKI "Between 1998 and 2008, Campbell was accused ten times of committing acts of violence against employees, associates, and, in one instance, police officers. In 2000, Campbell pleaded guilty in Toronto to assaulting her personal assistant Georgina Galanis with a cell phone. Campbell paid Galanis an undisclosed sum and agreed to attend anger management classes; her record was cleared in exchange for her expressing remorse.[40][41]
By 2006, eight other employees and associates had come forward with claims of abuse: secretary Vanessa Frisbee claimed she was physically assaulted by Campbell, housekeeper Millicent Burton claimed Campbell had slapped, kicked, and scratched her, assistant Simone Craig claimed Campbell held her hostage and threw a phone at her, housekeeper Ana Scolavino claimed Campbell threw a BlackBerry personal organiser at her, maid Gaby Gibson claimed Campbell hit her and called her names, and assistant Amanda Brack claimed Campbell slapped and beat her with a BlackBerry.[13][41][42] Campbell's drug therapist claimed Campbell scratched her face during a counselling session.[41] Actress Yvonne Sciò claimed Campbell left her "covered in blood" after an altercation at a Rome hotel.[41] Sciò said, "She punched me in the face. She was like Mike Tyson."[41] In 2005, Campbell was photographed wearing a Chip and Pepper T-shirt that read "Naomi Hit Me...and I Loved It".[13]
In 2007, Campbell pleaded guilty in New York to assaulting her former housekeeper Ana Scolavino.[8][13] She was sentenced to pay Scolavino's medical expenses, attend an anger management program, and perform five days of community service with New York's sanitation department.[13] She attended her community service wearing designer outfits, including fedoras, furs, and—upon completion of her sentence—a silver sequined Dolce & Gabbana gown.[7][13] Campbell detailed her community service experience in a W feature titled "The Naomi Diaries", in which she wrote, "I keep on sweeping. I'm getting very protective of my pile of rubbish—kind of the way I feel about my Hermès handbag."[13] That same year, Campbell settled the lawsuits brought by actress Yvonne Sciò and her former assistant Amanda Brack.[43][13] She spoofed herself in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial, directed by Zach Braff, which showed her breaking her heel while gardening and throwing it through a window.[13]
In 2008, Campbell pleaded guilty to assaulting two police officers at Heathrow Airport in London.[8] She had spat at the officers following an argument about her lost luggage.[13] Campbell was sentenced to 200 hours of community service and fined $4,600.[8] She was banned for life from British Airways.[7] In 2009, Campbell settled the lawsuit brought by her former maid Gaby Gibson.[44]"
So comparing a black persons skin color to chocolate is racist and bad, beating people however? Yeah, that's acceptable.
She doesn't deserve the attention and should be promptly ignored.
I agree with your opinion of Naomi's character.
But what your suggesting is that if someone not Naomi sued who was more reputable (lets say martin luther king for shits and giggles) then this lawsuit would be "more legit" just because you like the accuser more. Shouldn't the main thinking be "is this lawsuit legit no matter who does the accusing?"
Let me clarify, I brought that up because I feel it shows that the lawsuit wasn't brought up by a rational person. So it's less likely to have any merit. It's not about liking someone more, it's about the integrity of the person. She probably just had a temper tantrum when she saw it and decided to sue. The lawyers may or may not have tried to talk her out of it, but they probably couldn't care less if it succeeds or not, they get paid regardless. Unfortunately, she will probably end up getting a settlement from them just to stop the bad publicity. Which to me is a small step from "blackmail" a term she probably thinks is racist too.
On June 02 2011 02:17 Kaitlin wrote: 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.
They already don't care about it. That's why these discussions happen.
Someone says "should we give a damn" Someone else replies "we should shouldn't we?" A third party says "Doesn't really matter anyway, lets just ignore it"
If people cared, discussion wouldn't happen because they all agree anyway. The fact is that most people don't care and worse--don't want to care. They don't want to think about it, they don't want to be part of it because its hard and insulting and weird to deal with. People would rather be apathetic and just let the shit sort itself.
Which is okay--I'm perfectly okay with people doing that so long as they know they're doing it.
What I mean is, Joe Public, who is reasonable, and tries to be a good person, considering people's sensitivities eventually gets tired of all this. Someone who actually tried to be a sensitive person came to realize that no matter how sensitive he was, it wasn't good enough. Realizing that he can't ever be sensitive enough, he stops trying and no longer cares about the issue.
I can't speak for other countries, but in the U.S., you're not in violation of any laws just for "being" racist or making such comments. Only if you deny employment, or certain other specific situations, based on races, can you find yourself a problem.
So, the fight against racism, the mindset, is a "persuasive" cause, not a legal one, as you can't legislate racism out of people's minds. While Joe Public would have been much more supporting of the argument previously, he has become desensitized to it because of the ridiculousness of situations such as this. It's a loss for the fight against racism.
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
Didn't they hire her already to do the ad?
I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva".
On June 02 2011 02:32 PhiliBiRD wrote: how is Naomi directly related to Naomi Campbell? I fail to see the direct connection.
idk who the hell naomi campbell is lol
Some public figures claim they are simply known by one name, such as Madonna, Cher, Paris. There was a recent Lindsay Lohan case in the news where an ad had a character named "Lindsay" and she claimed it was in reference to her.
Well, it's definitely racist to compare cambell and chocolate bar, a chocolate bar tastes good, doesn't whine about unnecessary shit and actually has value.
Perhaps some day all blacks/minoritioes realize that calling someone who says facts a racist is just going to bite them into ass. Not a single person should keep word "racist" in any value anymore. It's used from everything between torturing someone to not opening a door to black woman...
On June 01 2011 20:19 Jayme wrote: SO it's racist now to point out that someone has the same color skin as a chocolate bar?
Racism, AFAIK, was defined as thinking someone better or worse due to their race. I might take chocolate bar as a compliment. But I wouldn't overreact and immediately assume that it was intentionally racist. She does bring up a point though. Chocolate bar is used in a derogatory quite often in many different urban communities.
Personally I think it's just a accident of the company and Naomi overreacting, perhaps even glad for an excuse to get angry at something.
On June 02 2011 02:35 Mammel wrote: Well, it's definitely racist to compare cambell and chocolate bar, a chocolate bar tastes good, doesn't whine about unnecessary shit and actually has value.
Perhaps some day all blacks/minoritioes realize that calling someone who says facts a racist is just going to bite them into ass. Not a single person should keep word "racist" in any value anymore. It's used from everything between torturing someone to not opening a door to black woman...
I pretty much agree, but I just wanted to add that I've even heard of women being offended when men DO open doors for them ... What a world we live in.
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
Didn't they hire her already to do the ad?
I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva".
Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is.
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
Didn't they hire her already to do the ad?
I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva".
Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is.
Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is.
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
Didn't they hire her already to do the ad?
I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva".
Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is.
Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is.
Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent?
I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
On June 02 2011 02:35 Mammel wrote: Well, it's definitely racist to compare cambell and chocolate bar, a chocolate bar tastes good, doesn't whine about unnecessary shit and actually has value.
Perhaps some day all blacks/minoritioes realize that calling someone who says facts a racist is just going to bite them into ass. Not a single person should keep word "racist" in any value anymore. It's used from everything between torturing someone to not opening a door to black woman...
You are retarded if you think racism doesn't exist anymore, or can't be used to describe actions from others. Retarded.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Edit: And yes, it would have been just as racist to use a white chocolate bar and a white model.
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
Didn't they hire her already to do the ad?
I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva".
Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is.
Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is.
Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent?
An hydralisk is a public figure right?
lol, no a hydralisk isn't a public figure. Likely Blizzard would have legal rights to the names it creates. Think about all the political ads we see. Do you think the political targets of all those ads gave their consent ? Hell to the no lol. But since they are public figures, they have to deal with them.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
OK I'm am actually certain no one is stupid enough to make the direct correlation between her skin and the chocolate bar. It was implied whether intentional or not, the company should take responsibility. If there is even the slightest possibility of a reaction like this a company should never put the ad out. It's basic marketing.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
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
Didn't they hire her already to do the ad?
I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva".
Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is.
Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is.
Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent?
An hydralisk is a public figure right?
lol, no a hydralisk isn't a public figure. Likely Blizzard would have legal rights to the names it creates. Think about all the political ads we see. Do you think the political targets of all those ads gave their consent ? Hell to the no lol. But since they are public figures, they have to deal with them.
You could make a game about a company who made games called Blizzard. So long as it was "indirect" and depended on "pop culture context" to realize who you were talking about. (You're game could call the company Bizzard or Blizz Ard for example)
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
Didn't they hire her already to do the ad?
I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva".
Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is.
Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is.
Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent?
An hydralisk is a public figure right?
lol, no a hydralisk isn't a public figure. Likely Blizzard would have legal rights to the names it creates. Think about all the political ads we see. Do you think the political targets of all those ads gave their consent ? Hell to the no lol. But since they are public figures, they have to deal with them.
So why do games like Winning11 have to use fake names for the football players while Electronic Arts payed for the right to use real player names on their FIFA games series? Aren't football players just as public figures as Naomi?
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
Didn't they hire her already to do the ad?
I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva".
Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is.
Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is.
Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent?
An hydralisk is a public figure right?
lol, no a hydralisk isn't a public figure. Likely Blizzard would have legal rights to the names it creates. Think about all the political ads we see. Do you think the political targets of all those ads gave their consent ? Hell to the no lol. But since they are public figures, they have to deal with them.
You could make a game about a company who made games called Blizzard. So long as it was "indirect" and depended on "pop culture context" to realize who you were talking about. (You're game could call the company Bizzard or Blizz Ard for example)
But if the company was slandered in anyway Blizzard could make the case that it was detrimental to their image due to the obvious similarities and such
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
OK I'm am actually certain no one is stupid enough to make the direct correlation between her skin and the chocolate bar. It was implied whether intentional or not, the company should take responsibility. If there is even the slightest possibility of a reaction like this a company should never put the ad out. It's basic marketing.
Well, I'm sure the chocolate company paid some outside advertising agency to create the ad. It's not something chocolate companies do themselves. Professional marketing companies know "basic marketing". Obviously they didn't think it was racist, or they wouldn't have put it out there. Some of us in this thread had to ponder the ad to see how it was racist. How much time should someone devote to brainstorming every "slightest possibility" that something could be offensive to someone ?
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
Didn't they hire her already to do the ad?
I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva".
Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is.
Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is.
Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent?
An hydralisk is a public figure right?
lol, no a hydralisk isn't a public figure. Likely Blizzard would have legal rights to the names it creates. Think about all the political ads we see. Do you think the political targets of all those ads gave their consent ? Hell to the no lol. But since they are public figures, they have to deal with them.
So why do games like Winning11 have to use fake names for the football players while Electronic Arts payed for the right to use real player names on their FIFA games series? Aren't football players just as public figures as Naomi?
I think this has more to do with the rights of the league to the teams and such. I'm not sure, but I know in U.S. law, public figures have very little recourse against people using their names and likenesses.
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).
Lol no she's the one harassing the company for making something mildly interpretable (only if you're a racist deep down inside) as a racial slur.
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
Didn't they hire her already to do the ad?
I don't believe there is any indication that she had anything to do with the ad, other than she was referred to by the Company, as she is a public figure, considered a "Diva".
Isn't it against the law in the US to use someone's name on a public ad without permission? In my country it certainly is.
Not if they are "public figures", which Naomi Campbell certainly is.
Wait. Can I make my own game with starcraft units in it and sell it in the US without paying Blizzard a cent?
An hydralisk is a public figure right?
lol, no a hydralisk isn't a public figure. Likely Blizzard would have legal rights to the names it creates. Think about all the political ads we see. Do you think the political targets of all those ads gave their consent ? Hell to the no lol. But since they are public figures, they have to deal with them.
So why do games like Winning11 have to use fake names for the football players while Electronic Arts payed for the right to use real player names on their FIFA games series? Aren't football players just as public figures as Naomi?
I think this has more to do with the rights of the league to the teams and such. I'm not sure, but I know in U.S. law, public figures have very little recourse against people using their names and likenesses.
Ok, I'll try to look more into that. Thanks for helping anyway ^^
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
OK I'm am actually certain no one is stupid enough to make the direct correlation between her skin and the chocolate bar. It was implied whether intentional or not, the company should take responsibility. If there is even the slightest possibility of a reaction like this a company should never put the ad out. It's basic marketing.
Well, I'm sure the chocolate company paid some outside advertising agency to create the ad. It's not something chocolate companies do themselves. Professional marketing companies know "basic marketing". Obviously they didn't think it was racist, or they wouldn't have put it out there. Some of us in this thread had to ponder the ad to see how it was racist. How much time should someone devote to brainstorming every "slightest possibility" that something could be offensive to someone ?
Are you kidding me? Cadbury HAS to look at the ad before they consider putting it out there. They have to approve it, and it behooves them to ALWAYS think of every possibility - much like this one. Not doing that will result in the defamation of their name, because they simply overlooked very obvious (if you ask me) potential racist connotations. It's in the job descriptions of both the advertising agency and Cadbury.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
I've never heard anyone call a black person a chocolate bar and I went to school in a rather racist area. Do people actually use this slang or is this slang just made up and people say it's a racial slur?
The bar makers obviously are not making a comparison to skin color, but she's too dumb to understand that. If she sues and wins, I lose the hope I never had in our civil court system.
There's nothing racist about this, because the word chocolate bar is used by a select few people referring demeaningly to black people doesn't mean that Cadbury's commercial is, it's referring to the fucking product, a chocolate bar.
On June 02 2011 03:24 RoosterSamurai wrote: The commercial isn't insinuating that one race is better than another, therefore it is not racist. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
I agree with that. Even if they're comparing her to chocolate. Chocolate are delicious. I would like to be compared to chocolate
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
What now?
I see dark chocolate in all 5 pictures you linked, 3 times with a white woman, once with a reference to a black woman and once without any woman at all.
On June 02 2011 03:24 RoosterSamurai wrote: The commercial isn't insinuating that one race is better than another, therefore it is not racist. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
I agree with that. Even if they're comparing her to chocolate. Chocolate are delicious. I would like to be compared to chocolate
It's not about the taste of chocolate its about the color, and its not racist at all, the problem has always been that they chose her name, her character, for the sole reason that her skin was comparable to the chocolate. They could have chosen so many other "divas" out there but they chose her. It is OBVIOUSLY intentional.
On June 02 2011 03:24 RoosterSamurai wrote: The commercial isn't insinuating that one race is better than another, therefore it is not racist. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
I agree with that. Even if they're comparing her to chocolate. Chocolate are delicious. I would like to be compared to chocolate
African Americans have long slongs Chinese Students study harder "Latin" Americans (South Americans) are good at sex etc....
All are compliments, all are racist.
The reason its a problem is because of the possible repercussions it would have in the minority's own community if it were to be accepted as okay. If its okay to think of black women as chocolates (legally so if she loses) then what does that mean to the african community as a whole (legally speaking)?
If its okay to call them an innocent food thing, what other stuff is it okay to call them so long as it is "innocent." Lines always have to be drawn if we are to know where we stand.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
What now?
I see dark chocolate in all 5 pictures you linked, 3 times with a white woman, once with a reference to a black woman and once without any woman at all.
Kind of disproving your own theory there.
Its cute that you think how dark the chocolate is matters more that how the image is used
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
What now?
I see dark chocolate in all 5 pictures you linked, 3 times with a white woman, once with a reference to a black woman and once without any woman at all.
Kind of disproving your own theory there.
Its cute that you think how dark the chocolate is matters more that how the image is used
You sound really stupid. It's time to shut the fuck up.
Bottom line is that it's completely ridiculous whatever happens...
Black people are black. There's plenty of songs where white people are linked to white chocolate and black people are linked to dark chocolate. It's just the skin-colour. All the extra stigma gets added after, and has everything to do with intention and perception. In this case the intention seems completely harmeless, and the reaction seems rediculous. People *take* offence way to often to things that they could easily let slide.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
What now?
I see dark chocolate in all 5 pictures you linked, 3 times with a white woman, once with a reference to a black woman and once without any woman at all.
Kind of disproving your own theory there.
Its cute that you think how dark the chocolate is matters more that how the image is used
It's cute how you must have failed reading comprehension. He said nothing about the differing colors of the chocolate. He DID say something about how all the ads have dark chocolate and three of them have white women.
Yes, Ms. Campbell is being stupid. However, this entire story and the posts here are designed to elicit a response. I've seen this on Reddit and now unfortunately it's spreading here.
And just by reading some of these comments, it's fairly disgusting.
On June 02 2011 03:40 TheJizWiz wrote: I still dont get how this add is comparing her to a chocolaet bar. Can someone please explain it to me?
It's not, just an over sensitive person who hasn't been in the news recently so it was time she stirred up the pot about something completely stupid. Not that she will win in a million years anyways so w.e this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with NA society at the moment. People have paper thin skin and get offended at everything, and with the way courts work/ all the people terrified to open their mouths lest a coloured person hears then say "chocolate bar" this situation isn't even surprising. It's just sad.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
What now?
I see dark chocolate in all 5 pictures you linked, 3 times with a white woman, once with a reference to a black woman and once without any woman at all.
Kind of disproving your own theory there.
Its cute that you think how dark the chocolate is matters more that how the image is used
No, it's more about how it's possible to construe pretty much everything in this world as racism if you try hard enough.
Also, it's a ridiculous lawsuit concerning she had no problem with pictures like this:
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:
On June 02 2011 03:40 TheJizWiz wrote: I still dont get how this add is comparing her to a chocolaet bar. Can someone please explain it to me?
It's not, just an over sensitive person who hasn't been in the news recently so it was time she stirred up the pot about something completely stupid. Not that she will win in a million years anyways so w.e this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with NA society at the moment. People have paper thin skin and get offended at everything, and with the way courts work/ all the people terrified to open their mouths lest a coloured person hears then say "chocolate bar" this situation isn't even surprising. It's just sad.
So true. I can't even imagine what goes on in people's minds when they think the opposite of what you just typed. Their minds have been warped into a political correct slushy and honestly its beyond pathetic.
On June 02 2011 03:40 TheJizWiz wrote: I still dont get how this add is comparing her to a chocolaet bar. Can someone please explain it to me?
The ad describes the chocolate bar being treated like a Diva.
Hence it is covered in ornate things.
The ad also tells "Naomi" to "move over" so she can be replaced by said chocolate bar.
The chocolate bar is a Diva based on how it is gowned. It is then implied in the ad that Naomi and the chocolate bar are interchangeable in the image.
Hence why "Move over Naomi a new Diva is in town" has a message of interchangeability between woman and chocolate. This has deep seeded roots not in racism, but sexism--specifically the objectification of women as sex objects. This trend of female objectification has a new relationship with chocolate in that chocolate ads are now showcasing themselves as a way to "pleasure" women. If you watch Dove chocolate commercials you will see this trend in action of the unifying of the female and chocolate as a sex object.
This ad attempts to take advantage of that current trend by having a known "sex/sexy object" be replaced by the new "sex object" the cadbury chocolate. This creates the image of Female and Chocolate as mirrored objects and hence why the ad equates the human being Naomi Campbell to a mere bar of chocolate.
On June 01 2011 20:42 veljanov wrote: in sweden we have theese chocolate balls that was always called neger(nigger)bollar(balls), but ofc that aint allowed any more for some quite good resons, just plain old choclate balls now.
haha nice, we have something similar in germany, it's basically some cream with choclate over it so you can take it in the hand and it's called negerkuss ( niggerkiss )
im sorry but, neger != nigger. its more like negro. just saying.
racism is stupid from the very core of it. if i dont like a person its because they did something to deserve it, not because i dont like how they look.
On June 02 2011 03:40 TheJizWiz wrote: I still dont get how this add is comparing her to a chocolaet bar. Can someone please explain it to me?
It's not, just an over sensitive person who hasn't been in the news recently so it was time she stirred up the pot about something completely stupid. Not that she will win in a million years anyways so w.e this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with NA society at the moment. People have paper thin skin and get offended at everything, and with the way courts work/ all the people terrified to open their mouths lest a coloured person hears then say "chocolate bar" this situation isn't even surprising. It's just sad.
I meant for someone who has the opinion that it does to answer. Because i cant see any connection between theese two in the add except that both are divas. Also she is used because this is a british add and she is the most famous british diva.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
What now?
I see dark chocolate in all 5 pictures you linked, 3 times with a white woman, once with a reference to a black woman and once without any woman at all.
Kind of disproving your own theory there.
Its cute that you think how dark the chocolate is matters more that how the image is used
It's cute how you must have failed reading comprehension. He said nothing about the differing colors of the chocolate. He DID say something about how all the ads have dark chocolate and three of them have white women.
Especially since my initial post says nothing about the darkness of the chocolate, simply on how the chocolate as an object is used.
When the chocolate and the female are equated, its a black model or a brown heavy color scheme. When the ad is showing the consumption of chocolate, it is white women in the images.
But when an add equates women with the fruits and nuts of a chocolate bar, as opposed to the chocolate itself, it returns to the image of a white woman.
The darkness of the chocolate means nothing except to you two
Its so obvious that the context of this joke is about her being a diva. Hopefully Naomi is just doing this to get some quick bucks and is not stupid enough to actually think the Cadbury is so amateur to do a racist joke when they are such a big brand... ( though I wouldnt be surprised )
if this wasnt explained in the OP i never would never understood what this is about. so ya... stop trying so hard to find something that could maybe be interpreted as racism.
btw that morgan freeman clip is great. anyone got a link to the whole show? would be very interested to listen what he has to say outside of movies. such a great man.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
What now?
I see dark chocolate in all 5 pictures you linked, 3 times with a white woman, once with a reference to a black woman and once without any woman at all.
Kind of disproving your own theory there.
Its cute that you think how dark the chocolate is matters more that how the image is used
It's cute how you must have failed reading comprehension. He said nothing about the differing colors of the chocolate. He DID say something about how all the ads have dark chocolate and three of them have white women.
Especially since my initial post says nothing about the darkness of the chocolate, simply on how the chocolate as an object is used.
When the chocolate and the female are equated, its a black model or a brown heavy color scheme. When the ad is showing the consumption of chocolate, it is white women in the images.
But when an add equates women with the fruits and nuts of a chocolate bar, as opposed to the chocolate itself, it returns to the image of a white woman.
The darkness of the chocolate means nothing except to you two
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Edit: And yes, it would have been just as racist to use a white chocolate bar and a white model.
Seems like you brought up the color of the chocolate first to me.
I hate people that construe everything as racist. Seriously, we all know that besides skin color there's nothing different about black people, the fact that someone like Naomi would get all defensive over some quasi offensive advert makes you question whether she believes it herself.
The colour of the chocolate bar has nothing to do with the advert. It has everything to do with the chocolate's exotic and luxurious image...hence the diva association.
Naomi Campbell's an idiot and it doesn't surprise me that the message of the advert is lost on her entirely. GL with the lawsuit...just try not to embarrass yourself any more than you already have.
On June 02 2011 03:40 TheJizWiz wrote: I still dont get how this add is comparing her to a chocolaet bar. Can someone please explain it to me?
It's not, just an over sensitive person who hasn't been in the news recently so it was time she stirred up the pot about something completely stupid. Not that she will win in a million years anyways so w.e this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with NA society at the moment. People have paper thin skin and get offended at everything, and with the way courts work/ all the people terrified to open their mouths lest a coloured person hears then say "chocolate bar" this situation isn't even surprising. It's just sad.
So true. I can't even imagine what goes on in people's minds when they think the opposite of what you just typed. Their minds have been warped into a political correct slushy and honestly its beyond pathetic.
Its not about political awareness--the goal is not censorship. Its about calling things out for what they are. It's about being honest and direct instead of passive. It's about drawing the line somewhere on the sand in order to properly define what things are and aren't.
Its not about her winning Its not about her losing Its not about chocolates Its not about the money
Its about deciding which morals should be supported by the government and which morals should not. Its about a future where things are so clear to us on whether what we're doing is right and wrong that we wouldn't need to have to file a lawsuit because any attempt at doing so would be retorted with "Oh, that's already been decided, he wins, you lose, that'd be $100 please "
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
WTF, dude, you said:
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
You said "If ... they would have also ....". You speculated what they WOULD HAVE done. Not that they did, but what they WOULD HAVE done, based on your own speculation. That's SPECULATION. I don't know wtf you are pulling all those ads and trying to get some racial overtones. This is some crazy stuff.
I'm tempted to start a company, make chocolate covered pretzels, hire an ad agency to feature an African-American gymnast as my spokesmodel, and do it all in your honor.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
What now?
I see dark chocolate in all 5 pictures you linked, 3 times with a white woman, once with a reference to a black woman and once without any woman at all.
Kind of disproving your own theory there.
Its cute that you think how dark the chocolate is matters more that how the image is used
It's cute how you must have failed reading comprehension. He said nothing about the differing colors of the chocolate. He DID say something about how all the ads have dark chocolate and three of them have white women.
Especially since my initial post says nothing about the darkness of the chocolate, simply on how the chocolate as an object is used.
When the chocolate and the female are equated, its a black model or a brown heavy color scheme. When the ad is showing the consumption of chocolate, it is white women in the images.
But when an add equates women with the fruits and nuts of a chocolate bar, as opposed to the chocolate itself, it returns to the image of a white woman.
The darkness of the chocolate means nothing except to you two
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Edit: And yes, it would have been just as racist to use a white chocolate bar and a white model.
Seems like you brought up the color of the chocolate first to me.
I did bring up color.
They brought up darkness.
I don't equate something being "dark" as black, so I didn't think it was important.
You three apparently believe how dark something is matters more than what color it is.
Or did you just not know the difference between something having color and something having intensity?
On June 02 2011 04:11 chickenhawk wrote: So if they got a white brand chocolate and it was a white blond girl in the ad, would it be racist? So stupidy...
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.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
You said "If ... they would have also ....". You speculated what they WOULD HAVE done. Not that they did, but what they WOULD HAVE done, based on your own speculation. That's SPECULATION. I don't know wtf you are pulling all those ads and trying to get some racial overtones. This is some crazy stuff.
I'm tempted to start a company, make chocolate covered pretzels, hire an ad agency to feature an African-American gymnast as my spokesmodel, and do it all in your honor.
I'm sorry evidence supports my speculation
If you want, I can feel really bad about being right.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
WTF, dude, you said:
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
You said "If ... they would have also ....". You speculated what they WOULD HAVE done. Not that they did, but what they WOULD HAVE done, based on your own speculation. That's SPECULATION. I don't know wtf you are pulling all those ads and trying to get some racial overtones. This is some crazy stuff.
I'm tempted to start a company, make chocolate covered pretzels, hire an ad agency to feature an African-American gymnast as my spokesmodel, and do it all in your honor.
I'm sorry evidence supports my speculation
If you want, I can feel really bad about being right.
Or, since this case will be thrown out... you can feel bad being on the wrong side of the law D:
I don't care about your "evidence". The court decision will determine the "racism" here, not some random anonymous internet poster.
On June 02 2011 04:14 Korinai wrote: Next thing you know, white people are going to be sued for not having an equal ratio of black and white socks.
During the "jone's" era of america (50's-60's) people were getting fired for not "looking" right or not being "dressed" right. Socks were part of that. Matching socks specifically. Actually I think there's a euro bank that even has rules on underwear and stockings.
So you don't really have to wait. Not only is it already happening, it's been happening for at least 50+ years.
sorry but i was blown away with the suggestion that fried chicken is racist...
calling someone 'dark' because of the colour of their skin is no different to calling a kid 'fat' because he's overweight, or any other 'playground' prejudice.
On June 01 2011 20:42 veljanov wrote: in sweden we have theese chocolate balls that was always called neger(nigger)bollar(balls), but ofc that aint allowed any more for some quite good resons, just plain old choclate balls now.
haha nice, we have something similar in germany, it's basically some cream with choclate over it so you can take it in the hand and it's called negerkuss ( niggerkiss )
im sorry but, neger != nigger. its more like negro. just saying.
racism is stupid from the very core of it. if i dont like a person its because they did something to deserve it, not because i dont like how they look.
Usually I'm disappointed when celebrities who I like from their movies open their mouths, but with Morgan Freeman, it's the opposite. This guy is one of my favorites.
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
WTF, dude, you said:
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
You said "If ... they would have also ....". You speculated what they WOULD HAVE done. Not that they did, but what they WOULD HAVE done, based on your own speculation. That's SPECULATION. I don't know wtf you are pulling all those ads and trying to get some racial overtones. This is some crazy stuff.
I'm tempted to start a company, make chocolate covered pretzels, hire an ad agency to feature an African-American gymnast as my spokesmodel, and do it all in your honor.
I'm sorry evidence supports my speculation
If you want, I can feel really bad about being right.
Or, since this case will be thrown out... you can feel bad being on the wrong side of the law D:
I don't care about your "evidence". The court decision will determine the "racism" here, not some random anonymous internet poster.
Have you been reading my posts? The fact that I care about the court's decision and not just anecdotal based "common sense" is the whole reason I'm posting. I'd love to know what the court's opinions on this is.
On June 02 2011 04:19 shizna wrote: sorry but i was blown away with the suggestion that fried chicken is racist...
any random object can be racist if someone uses it in a racist comment, it doesn't make the object a racist object.
seriously... chocolate is racist? quick, we need to make all food products in the world 'neutral coloured' gray! happy now naomi?
Lol. well, fried chicken and watermelon kind of hold a special place, separate from just any ordinary food. They have developed a certain racial quality, through comedic reference to black people having a particular penchant for those particular foods.
You guys are misinterpreting everything. THIS AD IS NOT RACIST AT ALL!! moreover, Naomi Campbell is stupid for calling it racist. However, You cannot deny that they chose Naomi as the diva for the SOLE fact that her skin is comparable to that of the bar. It isn't racist but its something that will always annoy a black person. BTW she is fucking hot in that giant bunny pic.
On June 02 2011 04:14 Korinai wrote: Next thing you know, white people are going to be sued for not having an equal ratio of black and white socks.
I always wear black socks...
safe! \o/
This is so stupid. I don't understand how this is racist...If anything it's just making fun of her for being a diva. And even then it's not that bad. I guess they should have made sure they can use the ad before running it.
Type of advertisement reminds me of the BMW / Audi thing though.. Except they were a lot better sports about it.
BMW didn't flip the fuck out and sue the pants off Audi, they rolled with it.
On June 01 2011 20:20 Steveling wrote: Yet another case,where those classy advertisers dont have a clue bout real world slangs. I think she overeacted anyway.
Because when I think about a bar of chocolate, I immediately think "woahhhh racism!"
On June 02 2011 04:19 shizna wrote: sorry but i was blown away with the suggestion that fried chicken is racist...
any random object can be racist if someone uses it in a racist comment, it doesn't make the object a racist object.
seriously... chocolate is racist? quick, we need to make all food products in the world 'neutral coloured' gray! happy now naomi?
Its not that chocolate is racist. It's saying a black woman on top of the social ladder is only as impressive as a chocolate bar. That is the racist part.
For example, if someone said "your mother's sucked more cock than an american sorority" the first response should not be "That's great that you think my mother is young 20 year old " nor should it be "My mom does have a lot of Stamina, I can see your point" nor should it be "My *is* american! How did you know!"
The phrase is an insult to both mothers *and* sororities. It is also an insult to female sexuality and also supports the ideology of male sexuality as something that dominates the female.
BUT that doesn't mean it should never be said, nor does it mean that we should hang people for saying that phrase. So long as you are aware that it is not a "harmless joke" or a "lighthearted jab."
Maybe if Naomi was actually bullied enough to be in the demographic of "chocolate bars" she's talking about I'd care. But she's not, she's not even close. Negligent, sure, but racist? Nope, I'm no expert, but this case doesn't take an expert.
Cadbury wasn't trying to pull a racist fast one. Naomi is just setting her race/gender back a few years by being the stereotype everyone expects. I don't know what else she could've expected by stretching the race card that thin.
On June 01 2011 20:20 Steveling wrote: Yet another case,where those classy advertisers dont have a clue bout real world slangs. I think she overeacted anyway.
Because when I think about a bar of chocolate, I immediately think "woahhhh racism!"
I didn't think racism when I first heard the term paki, or gyp, or limey, or kraut, or polock.
Heck, 2 of those slurs are even food based just like the chocolate.
The reason why she feels the need to sue a company for these, so called, racial slurs is because she is insecure of herself and wants to take advantage of the system. It's pathetic to see such a lowly attempt to make her pocket book bigger. Not only should she feel ashamed of herself, all of these people who have actually been under the influence of racism should be disappointed in her. She is the type of person who is going to use everything the system gives her and manipulate it because she is a selfish, insecure bitch.
In my town, there is a chicken and waffles place that is only open from 10pm to 4am. Its run by ghetto black people and all you can order is fried chicken with waffles.
I dont even think the place has a name. We just call it "chicken and waffles" and it is delicious.
I think Naomi Cambell could use a little more chicken and waffles in her life. Seriously, she is too skinny.
There are no bad words, only bad thoughts behind them.
Cadbury's clearly didn't mean to offend, or to be racist, they were playing on the "diva" aspect since Naomi is one of the most well known U.K divas of the day. Not because of her skin colour.
She's digging her own grave here. I hope she doesn't succeed.
On June 02 2011 04:32 pyrohippy wrote: The reason why she feels the need to sue a company for these, so called, racial slurs is because she is insecure of herself and wants to take advantage of the system. It's pathetic to see such a lowly attempt to make her pocket book bigger. Not only should she feel ashamed of herself, all of these people who have actually been under the influence of racism should be disappointed in her. She is the type of person who is going to use everything the system gives her and manipulate it because she is a selfish, insecure bitch.
She speaks for all black people though by doing this according to her own words.
On June 02 2011 04:29 TsoBadGuy wrote: Maybe if Naomi was actually bullied enough to be in the demographic of "chocolate bars" she's talking about I'd care. But she's not, she's not even close. Negligent, sure, but racist? Nope, I'm no expert, but this case doesn't take an expert.
Cadbury wasn't trying to pull a racist fast one. Naomi is just setting her race/gender back a few years by being the stereotype everyone expects. I don't know what else she could've expected by stretching the race card that thin.
My biggest problem with the people of this thread is exactly this point. It's easy to say that her plight doesn't mean anything because she's so damn rich and pretty what does she have to complain about right? It ain't like she has feelings or nothin'.
Let me makes some things clear.
I think she's silly and stupid for choosing this ad of all the ads to get upset about. I think she's not as insulted as she claims to be and I also think that she knows jack squat about the state of the african american community for the same reason the Bill Gates doesn't know jack about the state of the low income midwest (american midwest) communities.
But! If it was someone more legit making the claim, would we care more? If would care more if it was someone more legit, then shouldn't we care now? The one thing folks like Naomi have that "legit" complainers don't have is the money to complain the way Naomi is complaining. It is in times like these that those legitimate downtrodden have a chance for change in their favor. Sure Naomi is weird for doing this--but don't think about her. Think about those people who can't sue because they don't have Naomi's money, Naomi's opportunity, Naomi's privilege.
On June 02 2011 04:19 shizna wrote: sorry but i was blown away with the suggestion that fried chicken is racist...
any random object can be racist if someone uses it in a racist comment, it doesn't make the object a racist object.
seriously... chocolate is racist? quick, we need to make all food products in the world 'neutral coloured' gray! happy now naomi?
Lol. well, fried chicken and watermelon kind of hold a special place, separate from just any ordinary food. They have developed a certain racial quality, through comedic reference to black people having a particular penchant for those particular foods.
what about the jokes that white people can't dance, jump, compete in athletics or measure up to a black man in genetalia size?
therefore the following is massively racist: nike release a pair of sneakers with the ad "move over downey jr, not even ironman is this fast!".
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
WTF, dude, you said:
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
You said "If ... they would have also ....". You speculated what they WOULD HAVE done. Not that they did, but what they WOULD HAVE done, based on your own speculation. That's SPECULATION. I don't know wtf you are pulling all those ads and trying to get some racial overtones. This is some crazy stuff.
I'm tempted to start a company, make chocolate covered pretzels, hire an ad agency to feature an African-American gymnast as my spokesmodel, and do it all in your honor.
I'm sorry evidence supports my speculation
If you want, I can feel really bad about being right.
Or, since this case will be thrown out... you can feel bad being on the wrong side of the law D:
I don't care about your "evidence". The court decision will determine the "racism" here, not some random anonymous internet poster.
Have you been reading my posts? The fact that I care about the court's decision and not just anecdotal based "common sense" is the whole reason I'm posting. I'd love to know what the court's opinions on this is.
Well this is interesting. You appear to be drawing attention to the point that cadbury compares black women to chocolate and has white women eat chocolate. Is this coincidence or hate crime? In my opinion, it's probably just that the adds are targeting different people and coincidence. two of the adds you showed look really old, and I just don't think there is much evidence that they targeted her because of her race at all. Who is the add targeted at? I won't say colored people, but I can certainly say white's don't care that much who the diva in town is.
On June 02 2011 04:19 shizna wrote: sorry but i was blown away with the suggestion that fried chicken is racist...
any random object can be racist if someone uses it in a racist comment, it doesn't make the object a racist object.
seriously... chocolate is racist? quick, we need to make all food products in the world 'neutral coloured' gray! happy now naomi?
Lol. well, fried chicken and watermelon kind of hold a special place, separate from just any ordinary food. They have developed a certain racial quality, through comedic reference to black people having a particular penchant for those particular foods.
what about the jokes that white people can't dance, jump, compete in athletics or measure up to a black man in genetalia size?
does that mean that any reference to dancing, jumping, atletics or nob size is now offensive and racist?
Naomi near naked standing atop a chocolate bunny is not racist. It's sexist, objectifying and crude. But it's not racist because it's obviously a black model selling an item.
The cadbury ad was racist because of how it used the chocolate, not that chocolate exists.
Talking about "dance, jump, compete in athletics or measure up to a black man in genetalia size" is not inherently racist unless you juxtapose the images together.
If you told someone they were bad at dancing, that would not be racist. If you told someone they danced like a white guy, that would be racist. If you told someone they had a big dick, that would not be racist. If you told someone they had a "nigger's dick" that would be racist.
Its the conflation of stereotype and race into a singular image that is racist--not the actual "faults."
it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian likes to take every opportunity where someone is offended by a believably offensive and racially coded thing and read it as the over-PC'ing of culture or rampant stupidity or oversensitivity. please spend 3 minutes thinking outside yourself before you post any mindless detritus about how if this was a white chocolate bar it wouldn't be racist
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.
None of us at TL are refuting the fact that Cadbury was being intentionally racist at all. Just a bit negligent, and its their responsibility (however ridiculous) to avoid these kind of things.
On June 02 2011 03:24 RoosterSamurai wrote: The commercial isn't insinuating that one race is better than another, therefore it is not racist. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
I agree with that. Even if they're comparing her to chocolate. Chocolate are delicious. I would like to be compared to chocolate
African Americans have long slongs Chinese Students study harder "Latin" Americans (South Americans) are good at sex etc....
All are compliments, all are racist.
The reason its a problem is because of the possible repercussions it would have in the minority's own community if it were to be accepted as okay. If its okay to think of black women as chocolates (legally so if she loses) then what does that mean to the african community as a whole (legally speaking)?
If its okay to call them an innocent food thing, what other stuff is it okay to call them so long as it is "innocent." Lines always have to be drawn if we are to know where we stand.
People have different traits based on their ancestors, there's nothing racist about that. It's racist when you consider one race superior to the others.
On June 01 2011 20:20 Steveling wrote: Yet another case,where those classy advertisers dont have a clue bout real world slangs. I think she overeacted anyway.
Because when I think about a bar of chocolate, I immediately think "woahhhh racism!"
I didn't think racism when I first heard the term paki, or gyp, or limey, or kraut, or polock.
Heck, 2 of those slurs are even food based just like the chocolate.
You might want to avoid bananas also, offering a banana to a black person is extremely racist you know?
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.
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?
On June 02 2011 02:58 PeT[uK] wrote: I don't think its racist at all, but it is definitely referring to the color of her skin as her defining characteristic, and also how similar it is to a chocolate bar. Whens the last time you heard white people being referred to as a white chocolate bar in this context? I guess at the end of the day you have to realize that this candy bar and Naomi Campbell have nothing to do with each other. Yet the bar targeted her specifically because she is black. Can't you see whats wrong with that? There are a million other references that could have been made.
The ad targeted her in reference to "Diva", not the color of the chocolate bar.
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
Pure speculation on your part. Irrelevant speculation. Always helps in ridiculous arguments.
Pictures of ads where women and chocolates are seen as the same.
When women are chocolate, either the ad is brown or the model is brown.
When women eat chocolate, they are white.
When the woman is described as fruits and nuts and not chocolate, she is white.
Yeah, pure speculation indeed.
WTF, dude, you said:
The problem is that if they had decided to pick a white model's name they would have also used a white chocolate bar.
You said "If ... they would have also ....". You speculated what they WOULD HAVE done. Not that they did, but what they WOULD HAVE done, based on your own speculation. That's SPECULATION. I don't know wtf you are pulling all those ads and trying to get some racial overtones. This is some crazy stuff.
I'm tempted to start a company, make chocolate covered pretzels, hire an ad agency to feature an African-American gymnast as my spokesmodel, and do it all in your honor.
I'm sorry evidence supports my speculation
If you want, I can feel really bad about being right.
Or, since this case will be thrown out... you can feel bad being on the wrong side of the law D:
I don't care about your "evidence". The court decision will determine the "racism" here, not some random anonymous internet poster.
Have you been reading my posts? The fact that I care about the court's decision and not just anecdotal based "common sense" is the whole reason I'm posting. I'd love to know what the court's opinions on this is.
Well this is interesting. You appear to be drawing attention to the point that cadbury compares black women to chocolate and has white women eat chocolate. Is this coincidence or hate crime? In my opinion, it's probably just that the adds are targeting different people and coincidence. two of the adds you showed look really old, and I just don't think there is much evidence that they targeted her because of her race at all. Who is the add targeted at? I won't say colored people, but I can certainly say white's don't care that much who the diva in town is.
I simply said that it was not a coincidence that they chose a black model's name for a chocolate bar. My problem with it being that if they had decided to use a white model's name I'm certain they would have used a different chocolate. I was called silly for assuming that, so I went to the first page on google images and just grabbed cadbury chocolate ads with women on them.
I didn't grab the ones with men. I didn't grab the ones that emphasized *White Milk*
I grabbed the ones with females at the center of their image. Did I know what I would find? No. I assumed I would find it because they seemed like the type of people to do it. I found stuff that supported my assumption because they were there.
Had I looked hard at all I would have found even more.
Hell, the godiva image above is exactly what I was talking about. (And just because she didn't sue doesn't mean it wasn't racist)
On June 02 2011 03:24 RoosterSamurai wrote: The commercial isn't insinuating that one race is better than another, therefore it is not racist. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
I agree with that. Even if they're comparing her to chocolate. Chocolate are delicious. I would like to be compared to chocolate
African Americans have long slongs Chinese Students study harder "Latin" Americans (South Americans) are good at sex etc....
All are compliments, all are racist.
The reason its a problem is because of the possible repercussions it would have in the minority's own community if it were to be accepted as okay. If its okay to think of black women as chocolates (legally so if she loses) then what does that mean to the african community as a whole (legally speaking)?
If its okay to call them an innocent food thing, what other stuff is it okay to call them so long as it is "innocent." Lines always have to be drawn if we are to know where we stand.
People have different traits based on their ancestors, there's nothing racist about that. It's racist when you consider one race superior to the others.
On June 01 2011 20:20 Steveling wrote: Yet another case,where those classy advertisers dont have a clue bout real world slangs. I think she overeacted anyway.
Because when I think about a bar of chocolate, I immediately think "woahhhh racism!"
I didn't think racism when I first heard the term paki, or gyp, or limey, or kraut, or polock.
Heck, 2 of those slurs are even food based just like the chocolate.
You might want to avoid bananas also, offering a banana to a black person is extremely racist you know?
Actually Banana is also a term for asians that are too "americanized."
Its not about the existence of the term, it's how it is used. Just because you are not insulted by something does not mean it isn't insulting.
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.
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.
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.
On June 02 2011 04:46 benjammin wrote: it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian likes to take every opportunity where someone is offended by a believably offensive and racially coded thing and read it as the over-PC'ing of culture or rampant stupidity or oversensitivity. please spend 3 minutes thinking outside yourself before you post any mindless detritus about how if this was a white chocolate bar it wouldn't be racist
I've not seen anyone here be racist. I need to remind you however, that it's easy to construe practically anything as racist if you really wanted to. Also i'm very much the mind that people regardless of colour/eye shape/lip shape/height/facial features wise, are all growing up in cultures that are a lot more similar than we were even 50 years ago. I therefore know that people regardless of colour can be bloody stupid (and pull the racial trump card), and thats what Naomi is doing in this case.
As if Cadbury's was out to offend or be racist. Come on, why haven't we moved on from this shit.
One worry about cases like these is that due to the race card being such a tired old business these days, it might numb us to real, serious racism down the line.
Edit: @Iorkac, he obviously meant racism in this add. And "scare you", really? Just sounds like faux mumishness to me, like when people on talk show's say "speaking as a mother/parent" when they're really talking crap - but think it makes their banal and useless statements have more strength. Unfortunately in some cultures, it does . But generally it makes it look like you've no leg to stand on.
Lol. Political correctness is getting out of hand.
Anyways, isn't racims racist? I don't believe I've seen anyone making a big deal of someone making a "racist claim" about someone white. Just let it go already.
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.
Look, there is actual racism, and then there is fabricated racism. This chocolate bar ad is fabricated racism. It's not there. Naomi Campbell is insecure about herself and looking to be offended so she finds it. No rational person can find that ad offensive. Real racism, like the KKK and old white trash calling people niggers and whatnot, yeah that's the bad stuff. Unfortunately when nonsense like this ad gets called racist it dilutes the whole idea and the real racism that needs to be stopped just keeps on going.
The person who linked the Morgan Freeman video was spot on. Morgan Freeman is 100% correct on the issue. Racism continues to exist because we allow it to with stupidity like this "controversy" here.
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.
Lmfao you have got to be the dumbest person on this planet if you can say that with a straight face lmao. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT NOT RACIST?!!? lmao oh man.
I bet that if any of you had actual empathy for blacks facing racism, you wouldn't say half the things you say on this topic. You can parade around life thinking racism doesn't exist or that racist consist of only a minute fraction of any population - but you are deluding yourself. You yourself may or may not be racist, but that means nothing to the greater picture. To say that blacks are "silly" or juvenile for thinking this way is silly and juvenile in itself. Racism rears it's ugly head more often that you and I can fathom and it is always going to be there. This ad in particular, although distasteful, is not racist. It is a very subtle insinuation that doesn't deserve to be just 'overlooked' but by the same token doesn't deserve to be blown out of proportion.
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.
Lmfao you have got to be the dumbest person on this planet if you can say that with a straight face lmao. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT NOT RACIST?!!? lmao oh man.
I bet that if any of you had actual empathy for blacks facing racism, you wouldn't say half the things you say on this topic. You can parade around life thinking racism doesn't exist or that racist consist of only a minute fraction of any population - but you are deluding yourself. You yourself may or may not be racist, but that means nothing to the greater picture. To say that blacks are "silly" or juvenile for thinking this way is silly and juvenile in itself. Racism rears it's ugly head more often that you and I can fathom and it is always going to be there. This ad in particular, although distasteful, is not racist. It is a very subtle insinuation that doesn't deserve to be just 'overlooked' but by the same token doesn't deserve to be blown out of proportion.
How is an attribute of 'some people' a racist comment? You realize the irony there, right? You, yourself, are equating his usage of 'some people' to just blacks.
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.
Look, there is actual racism, and then there is fabricated racism. This chocolate bar ad is fabricated racism. It's not there. Naomi Campbell is insecure about herself and looking to be offended so she finds it. No rational person can find that ad offensive. Real racism, like the KKK and old white trash calling people niggers and whatnot, yeah that's the bad stuff. Unfortunately when nonsense like this ad gets called racist it dilutes the whole idea and the real racism that needs to be stopped just keeps on going.
The person who linked the Morgan Freeman video was spot on. Morgan Freeman is 100% correct on the issue. Racism continues to exist because we allow it to with stupidity like this "controversy" here.
And how do you decide which one is real and which one is fabricated? It should just make sense right? No normal human being would let actual bad stuff happen right? Certainly not within the past 50-60 have we allowed bad things to happen to whole swathes of people because common sense would let "real" folk know the difference right?
Its not about Naomi Campbell. Its about the dialogue. What's important is that we talk about it. Was the ad racist? Yes. It was also sexist. Should Cadbury be sued for it? I personally would not sue cadbury for it. My own experiences, my own history and personal biases would not allow me to sue cadbury. But my own experiences are anecdotal at best--ignorant at worse. Discourse, no matter how silly, is important in order to keep "common sense thinking" common. She obviously felt the need to do it--I can make fun of her for it all I want but it's still her choice. Whether she's lying, telling the truth or just bored doesn't make a difference. It's her choice to make even if its not the choice I would have made. And I don't like the mindset of belittling someone's choice just because we don't feel like she's cool enough for the club.
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.
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.
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.
Lmfao you have got to be the dumbest person on this planet if you can say that with a straight face lmao. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT NOT RACIST?!!? lmao oh man.
I bet that if any of you had actual empathy for blacks facing racism, you wouldn't say half the things you say on this topic. You can parade around life thinking racism doesn't exist or that racist consist of only a minute fraction of any population - but you are deluding yourself. You yourself may or may not be racist, but that means nothing to the greater picture. To say that blacks are "silly" or juvenile for thinking this way is silly and juvenile in itself. Racism rears it's ugly head more often that you and I can fathom and it is always going to be there. This ad in particular, although distasteful, is not racist. It is a very subtle insinuation that doesn't deserve to be just 'overlooked' but by the same token doesn't deserve to be blown out of proportion.
How is an attribute of 'some people' a racist comment? You realize the irony there, right? You, yourself, are equating his usage of 'some people' to just blacks.
lmfao no i'm not. His usage of some people is not being misconstrued by me for blacks only. I am taking his usage of some people to represent the people who, as he described, "look for racism" and my response was referring to the original comment of with the banana. I didnt call him racist I was calling the banana comment-maker a racist.
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.
Lmfao you have got to be the dumbest person on this planet if you can say that with a straight face lmao. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT NOT RACIST?!!? lmao oh man.
I bet that if any of you had actual empathy for blacks facing racism, you wouldn't say half the things you say on this topic. You can parade around life thinking racism doesn't exist or that racist consist of only a minute fraction of any population - but you are deluding yourself. You yourself may or may not be racist, but that means nothing to the greater picture. To say that blacks are "silly" or juvenile for thinking this way is silly and juvenile in itself. Racism rears it's ugly head more often that you and I can fathom and it is always going to be there. This ad in particular, although distasteful, is not racist. It is a very subtle insinuation that doesn't deserve to be just 'overlooked' but by the same token doesn't deserve to be blown out of proportion.
How is an attribute of 'some people' a racist comment? You realize the irony there, right? You, yourself, are equating his usage of 'some people' to just blacks.
Wow.... that's just....um... wow...uh.... I don't really have anything I can say to this..... It's like watching two ships sailing past each other in the night. Except it's daytime. And clear weather. And you actually have gps machines tracking each other. And you still somehow missed the conversation.
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.
Chocolate Bar: The message of the ad is that the chocolate bar is luxurious and exotic. These are characteristics typically associated with divas. That is the message the advert is trying to convey; hence the overall design and scheme of the ad.
Naomi Campbell: Luxurious and exotic (also, idiotic). She's probably one of the first names that springs to mind when considering individuals who society considers divas. I'm sure even Naomi herself would admit to this. She thrives off that association and hence is the target of this advert.
What is the problem? If you want to look at the colour of the chocolate bar itself and ascribe that to Naomi, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. It's clearly unintentional and you'd have to be grasping pretty far to think otherwise.
I can't believe someone is overreacting about race yet again for no reason. Anything can be racist at this point right? Seriously it needs to stop. The ad is not racist at all. Get over yourselves.
On June 02 2011 04:46 benjammin wrote: it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian likes to take every opportunity where someone is offended by a believably offensive and racially coded thing and read it as the over-PC'ing of culture or rampant stupidity or oversensitivity. please spend 3 minutes thinking outside yourself before you post any mindless detritus about how if this was a white chocolate bar it wouldn't be racist
Can I point something out? You said, "it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian" yet you're preaching about racism? You're using a logical fallacy (over generalization) and in this context it happens to be a racist comment. Kindly GTFO.
The thing that ticks me off is that this shit makes people bitter over even cries of racism. Some black people are whiny fucks that want publicity or money, just like white people. Then you give more fuel to the retards that think racism is dead.
The sad thing is that some people think worse of black people in general because of these stunts, even though no such thing happens when a white person files an asinine lawsuit.
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.
racism would imply a consistent series of messages from this company, which no one really seems to be accusing them of. however, if you can't see how this specific ad could at least be racially insensitive, i suppose we see things differently
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.
On June 02 2011 04:46 benjammin wrote: it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian likes to take every opportunity where someone is offended by a believably offensive and racially coded thing and read it as the over-PC'ing of culture or rampant stupidity or oversensitivity. please spend 3 minutes thinking outside yourself before you post any mindless detritus about how if this was a white chocolate bar it wouldn't be racist
Can I point something out? You said, "it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian" yet you're preaching about racism? You're using a logical fallacy (over generalization) and in this context it happens to be a racist comment. Kindly GTFO.
When I first read it, I too was thinking they were referring to the diva part and not the chocolate bar. This is pretty sad if she gets any type of money from this.
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.
On June 02 2011 04:46 benjammin wrote: it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian likes to take every opportunity where someone is offended by a believably offensive and racially coded thing and read it as the over-PC'ing of culture or rampant stupidity or oversensitivity. please spend 3 minutes thinking outside yourself before you post any mindless detritus about how if this was a white chocolate bar it wouldn't be racist
Can I point something out? You said, "it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian" yet you're preaching about racism? You're using a logical fallacy (over generalization) and in this context it happens to be a racist comment. Kindly GTFO.
On June 02 2011 04:46 benjammin wrote: it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian likes to take every opportunity where someone is offended by a believably offensive and racially coded thing and read it as the over-PC'ing of culture or rampant stupidity or oversensitivity. please spend 3 minutes thinking outside yourself before you post any mindless detritus about how if this was a white chocolate bar it wouldn't be racist
Can I point something out? You said, "it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian" yet you're preaching about racism? You're using a logical fallacy (over generalization) and in this context it happens to be a racist comment. Kindly GTFO.
"It was certainly never our intention to cause any offense, and the campaign itself is a light-hearted take on the social pretensions of Cadbury Dairy Milk Bliss."
People are way too sensitive, this reminds me of the fish sticks joke from southpark.
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.
Expecting someone to have sex because of flirting is sexist? Don't get me wrong, I think it's stupid to expect sex because of some flirting, but that doesn't make someone sexist imo. Sex has nothing to do with that situation. Now if they expect someone to have sex with them because they are flirting AND a specific sex/race/ect than that's sexism/racism/ect, but simply being naive enough to expect sex after flirting is none of those.
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?
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.
On June 02 2011 04:46 benjammin wrote: it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian likes to take every opportunity where someone is offended by a believably offensive and racially coded thing and read it as the over-PC'ing of culture or rampant stupidity or oversensitivity. please spend 3 minutes thinking outside yourself before you post any mindless detritus about how if this was a white chocolate bar it wouldn't be racist
Can I point something out? You said, "it's fascinating that a forum that's probably 99.9% white and asian" yet you're preaching about racism? You're using a logical fallacy (over generalization) and in this context it happens to be a racist comment. Kindly GTFO.
only 1% identification of african american/black, 93% asian/white, sorry my numbers were slightly off, that is in no way a racist comment
Good to know. Only the people accusing others can deem their own words not racist. Got it.
are you trying to derail? nothing in this line of argument makes any sense
Not trying to derail at all. Simply pointing out that you have cornered the market on determining what is racist and what isn't. It's ok for you to determine that what you say is not racist, but others can't. Obviously Cadbury's doesn't feel their ad is racist, but you deem otherwise.
On June 02 2011 03:01 PetitCrabe wrote: One day, her husband will compare her legs to yummy chocolate bars and he will be sued for racist sexual harrassement.
I lol'd HARD at this one, too good.
Anyways, this is all ridiculous, she won't win a penny.
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 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".
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 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 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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You have the heart in the right place, but I do not think like you.
I think that a small amount of racism should be allowed, or even sexism. If some one get s a bit hurt, well thats life, there is no need to go to court over adds like this.
We are all different, and a good way to accept that is for us to be allowed to play with that. I find it to be much more offensive to have legal amounts of women in some Europeans parliaments for example, the law should be for both genders.
I don't even understand how the ad is insensitive, even after having it explained to me. The ad doesn't even say "chocolate bar" anywhere in it as far as I can tell (although the text is very small). It says Naomi is a diva, and the bar itself is also a diva. Okay. If it said "Move over Naomi, there's a new chocolate bar in town" well yeah, I can definitely understand that one causing some concern.
I mean I'm very empathetic that she got offended by the ad... but i think you would be hard pressed to find any racist intent by the ad's creators. So to the OP: no I don't find this ad racist at all
On June 02 2011 06:57 MozzarellaL wrote: I'm confused as to how a trial court ruling or outcome sets precedent.
Basically, if the court rules in favour of Campbell and awards damages (i.e. money), then the underlying rationale is, generally, that any racial interpretation that can be gleaned from an advertisement, no matter how abstract, is valid. This rationale will HAVE to be adopted in any future case with similar facts, essentially throwing the door open for anybody with a possible racial interpretation of an advertisement to get damages in a similar fashion.
This is contrasted with the "precedent" mentioned before that advertising companies will be constrained severely in what types of advertisements they can produce. This is not a legal precedent at all; it's merely a commercial reaction to the legal precedent I outlined above.
She is a public figure, the advert was not intentionally racist. She has the burden of proof here, and needs to show that the chocolate factory made that "racist implication" knowingly or with intentional disregard. In other words, I'll be VERY surprised if she gets anything out of this other than publicity and expressed moral support from the black community. Personally, I don't think she has a case at all. But whatever, she can sue anyone she wants.
On June 02 2011 07:07 Cr4zyH0r5e wrote: She is a public figure, the advert was not intentionally racist. She has the burden of proof here, and needs to show that the chocolate factory made that "racist implication" knowingly or with intentional disregard. In other words, I'll be VERY surprised if she gets anything out of this other than publicity and expressed moral support from the black community. Personally, I don't think she has a case at all. But whatever, she can sue anyone she wants.
Honestly, I think the black community would be embarrassed by Campbell's actions. She's obviously using racism as a vessel for expressing her own outrage over the fact that she was labeled a diva and the fact that her persona was used in a demeaning way. Interestingly, I think that if she were to frame her case in that manner, it would have a lot more merit from a legal standpoint.
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?
After skimming through my posts I've come to the conclusion that my passion for the topic has overrun my objectivity. I apologize for the intensity of my posts. It's hard to keep a level head when I talk about this topic--race issues are very personal to me and I let this thread get the best of me.
On June 02 2011 07:20 lorkac wrote: After skimming through my posts I've come to the conclusion that my passion for the topic has overrun my objectivity. I apologize for the intensity of my posts. It's hard to keep a level head when I talk about this topic--race issues are very personal to me and I let this thread get the best of me.
Once again, I apologize.
Wow...wtf. Serious? Who does that? Hats off to you, whoever you are, for having the guts to apologize here (where the debates just seem to roll on forever for the sake of personal pride).
On June 02 2011 07:20 lorkac wrote: After skimming through my posts I've come to the conclusion that my passion for the topic has overrun my objectivity. I apologize for the intensity of my posts. It's hard to keep a level head when I talk about this topic--race issues are very personal to me and I let this thread get the best of me.
Once again, I apologize.
That my friend is admirable <3
It is a topic that is close to many of our hearts. Racism being in my eyes vile and disgusting and i'm sure in the eyes of most others aswell.
Wait a sec, haven't people of all races been using the vanilla vs chocolate analogy to compare/contrast/describe/allude to white and black people? There isn't even anything derogatory about describing someone as chocolate (in comparison to racial slurs comparing black people to monkeys, for example).
EDIT: I take that back sort of. It isn't really right for me to dictate what others should or shouldn't be offended by. It's just a little weird for me to accept that being compared to something nearly universally held to be a good thing (chocolate) is a bad thing. If anything, she should be offended that she is being called a diva (which she unquestionably is) - bringing race into the issue is just ridiculous.
I really don't understand anyone can consider this racist. 'Move over Naomi, there's a new diva in town'. Sure, it's an add for chocolate, but who cares? They could put the name of any model or celebrity in that space and the message would be the same, regardless of race. This is just some drama queen blowing things way out of proportion.
On June 02 2011 07:40 Pyo wrote: Wait a sec, haven't people of all races been using the vanilla vs chocolate analogy to compare/contrast/describe/allude to white and black people? There isn't even anything derogatory about describing someone as chocolate (in comparison to racial slurs comparing black people to monkeys, for example).
EDIT: I take that back sort of. It isn't really right for me to dictate what others should or shouldn't be offended by. It's just a little weird for me to accept that being compared to something nearly universally held to be a good thing (chocolate) is a bad thing. If anything, she should be offended that she is being called a diva (which she unquestionably is) - bringing race into the issue is just ridiculous.
I disagree with the statement that monkey is used as racial slurs, if so, they should be proud to be called monkey!
Odd the way other countries perceive things, in Austria we sell some things people would find rather offensive given the names, but not many think twice about it here. + Show Spoiler +
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?
No I can't >.< can you show me??
Yea, I hate shit like this. Just come out and say what they are without being an elitist about it. Hopefully you say something useful aside from picking out purely technical flaws in logic.
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:
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.
EPT![[image loading]](http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/06/01/amd_cadburyad.jpg)
Tbh I don't think the company meant any harm at all, but what can you do she seems to just not like it maybe they should have just issued an apology/explanation and pulled the ad when this thing started. But I know one thing I love chocolate (not milk chocolate though just like starbucks and dark chocolate) and I love to look at Naomi Cambell so this entire ordeal has been a win/win for me.![[image loading]](http://www.pulster.de/info/info_bilder/negerkuss.jpg)
Not comparing somebody to a cholocate bar, or showing a black guy eating chicken at TV.
![[image loading]](http://www.guyhepner.com/images/get/509x397/296/david-lachapelle-consumption-naomi-campbell-chocolate-playmate.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/R0Kvb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VtciA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://files.advertolog.com/files/adsarchive/part_647/6476055/file/chocolate-white-chocolate-small-11241.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nVZVA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8goeE.jpg)
