Not with you. It’s the same old, same old. I’ve said my piece and I am not going to keep saying it.

A bit of an over-reaction I think over a hoodie as it doesn't seem intentional. I'd make the same error as I'm not really wired to look for outrage or offense in every detail. Honestly it seems a bit unhealthy for our culture to be so obsessed with racism/sexism/-phobia, etc... I mean unless it's happening to an individual personally (which is understandable), but now it seems like society gets caught in the outrage machine from simple exposure.

The first 20 years of my life everyone but my immediate family were minorities, and if the media caught wind of even half the **** we say here, we'd all be doxxed, tared, and feathered for sure... quite scary times I think for someone who is not fully mentally/emotionally developed to have to be so hyper-critical about every little thing they write or tweet. I'm glad I wasn't raised with social media...

Anyway I think the criticism is frankly valid, it's just the emotional over-reaction to everything is getting a bit repetitive and domineering for me.

Addiction is the story of 2017. But not to opioids.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.0b689c3fe82b

Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ration/534198/

Great reads

Great post?

I do agree to a certain extent. I mean slogans have been put on T shirts for decades designed to shock and to make people think. So who cares?

The interesting thing in this particular case is that in order to be offended by the item, one would actually need to buy it and wear it. Which one would have thought would be an impossible set of circumstances.

..yeah I do understand that it would have to be purchased and worn for someone to be able to put a negative race related connotation to it...but that to me is one of the big things about it in that it’s starting to feel inclusive then and excluding some for their race.../...that then becomes prejudice which laws are there to protect...for me, it’s not so much the advertisement but more That it’s a garment that shouldn’t have been produced in the first place because it could rule out a whole section of society from purchasing it...and also obviously could cause offence...a black child should be able to wear the same garment as a white child without any negtive associations with their race...

...hmmm I have to say though I am a bit conflicted with the advertising of it though ..because I’m not sure whether that decision..to bring attention to it in the campaign etc..?....was something that was purposely done for this attention it’s getting..which to me does act as a mockery and starts to dilute racism so the best thing is to just let it be removed from the shelves but give it no more attention, which only feeds into the intention and gives exactly what was wanted and hoped for...I think I felt that stance with the Dove ad ...but then, is that right either...should we just ‘turn away’..from these decisions these large companies are making so frequently when it seems that everyone can see the obvious instantly...other than those decision makers who are actually employed to see... I mean back in the day there were very cruel and negative terms for children with mental disabilities and conditions...would it be felt acceptable for one of those terms to be now used on a garment which would exclude it from being worn by some children because of their disability...

Are you still deciding? :think: (:laugh:)

Very good points and something I wouldn't have thought of. See? This isn't something we would think about anymore if we're in the middle of being outraged. I suggest we as society takes 15 minute breaks in-between pitchforking sessions.

Maybe it doesn't help that we've stretched comedy/casual conversation in definition to include almost anything above and past the line. I can see that creating a perception of people not really taking these things seriously, but also aids in creating the overarching perception that, "we", the people condone --at least subjectively-- intolerance or ridicule of it's most disenfranchised subjects. So yeah this is a very casual example of that, but when comedians go too far, we tend to allow for the moving of the line in order to accommodate personal expression. And of course the further you move that line, the further up the "middleground" moves, so it allows for the precipice of misinterpretation.

It also doesn't help that most people are not too thrilled when certain subjects involves their sacred lamb. However, because we all disagree on what our sacred lambs, casual media casually cuts straight through all that and it creates a space where I think that scenarios can develop that create offense, intentionally or not. That then opens room for the argument that the intent to "harm" was a product of subconscious feelings and thus, our most outraged individuals demand that their sacred lambs to be coveted.

I try to be aware of this delineation, but it's impossible to be conscious of every single label/icon/symbol that could create the appearance of harm. I would not have thought of monkeys having to do with racism for blacks, but that's then that's something I'm not in a hurry to educate myself on as I don't want to accidentally make those associations in other incidents unintentionally. Kinda like how easy it was for India to be mis-gendered due to the constant conversation of whether she was really a she or a him (just to use as a far simpler example).

You know back in the day (omg the day), we would not be in such a rush to put out material that would/could cause offense. So when someone made a poster or put something up that was clearly out of those boundaries, it was much easier to say "Oh well that was definitely intentional because they surely know better". Now it's hard to see where exactly the offense is actually being created as it could just simply be someone elses personal interpretation since the line has shifted so much through casual discourse.

Anyway not too fond of going back to that era, but it's an interesting point you brought up and it got me thinking in that territory.


Kinda nuts they have to go to this extent. Yet another reason to online shop maybe?
H&M closes all its stores in South Africa after protests
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/13/news...ica/index.html

It deffo comes across as racist putting a black kid in it.I do remember back at primary school many moons ago you’d sometimes hear the black kids called monkeys.

I don’t think they need to pull the top because obviously it’s up to the parents if they buy it for their kid but putting a black model in is asking for trouble.
Part of me thinks it was a deliberate publicity stunt.

Perhaps the people actually involved in the photoshoot were having a long day and simply didn't think, I doubt the picture was originally posed with any intent, HOWEVER from there on its exactly the same as the Dove commercial;

There's no feasible way that this got all the way into a published ad without SOMEONE saying something - even if that's just "I know we don't mean anything by this but it's obviously going to cause problems", and yet they chose to proceed. That's where questions need to be asked if anywhere, in my opinion.

It can only be a grab for viral marketing. I'm pretty sure it's been proven at this point that the most important part of raising brand awareness and generating sales is simple exposure... And the content / slant of that exposure matters very little. Negative marketing that generates news stories (which are also FREE, unlike traditional advertising) is just as effective as if not more effevtive than a smaller, positive ad campaign.

You see similar with movies / games etc. quite often. If they gain notoriety they will make money... Doesn't matter if the content is actually trash.

Also, Trump.

Maybe we should stop being complicit then with our outrage :laugh: It's like a wood chipper...

But yeah, I'd say that backfired if it was intentional. I like to think there's always a 25-50% chance because that's just how the media generally works is to illicit strong reactions. But, if it was put together by an overseas employee for example, then they may have not had the idea in their head to see the problem. For example, this flub...

International advertising (wiki)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_advertising

7 International Marketing Campaigns That Failed to Translate
http://www.k-international.com/blog/...-to-translate/

I could see it now. Oh, Africa... I have an idea... they like jungles right? -_- The irony will be if the jackets are donated/liquidated, that they very possibly could end up in the hands of someone in a third world country someplace who would have no clue about the symbolism... I don't know, where else do material goods from bad ad campaigns go to die? Seems wasteful to just dispose of them outright unless they can reuse the material. (or maybe remove/cover the graphic)

He is just a footballer.

'He doesn't have a right to an opinion, he's just a footballer.'

We all have a right to an opinion! But some are making out his opinion is an informed fact.

Again, you show you have no understanding of the difference between a fact and an opinion. This is basic stuff, Brillo.

What's this apparent opinion made fact that you're referring to? Go on, tell us.