Ridiculous case of outrage nr....

[Najnaj]

"Consequence" does not dictate what is or isn't "racist".

Given that this is the consequence in this case...it does.

[Mistame]

Given that this is the consequence in this case...it does.

No, it doesn't. The labels in the OP do not meet the definition of "racist". The notion that someone being "offended" by something and thinking it's "racist" somehow magically makes it "racist" is irrational and stupid.

[Scottyjscizzle]

Well, I for one like my chocolate as I like my coffee: the blacker, the better. Thankfully I do not have social media, because no doubt, some nut somewhere would accuse me of having, what, reverse internalized racism? Something like that, I'm sure.

Probably not, see normal people who don't go out of their way to dredge shit up typically don't ever deal with anything on social media. People need to stop adding 900000 random nobodies trying to feel special, if you only have people you know at least tangentially than the chances of you dealing with dumb shit is low.

[niztheundead87]

Given that this is the consequence in this case...it does.

you just read it here dark chocolate is racist now

[oathy]

Social media is amazing but its made it so easy for professionally offended to get noticed.
Not that long ago if you wanted to make a comment like this. emai or letter to the paper was only way.
Get on Twitter scream and tag a keyword and its front page news.

Loads of these stories are down to how many retweets or likes they can get.

[Themius]

No, it doesn't. The labels in the OP do not meet the definition of "racist". The notion that someone being "offended" by something and thinking it's "racist" somehow magically makes it "racist" is irrational and stupid.

So racism can only be defined by the person making it not how it makes others feel

- - - Updated - - -

Social media is amazing but its made it so easy for professionally offended to get noticed.
Not that long ago if you wanted to make a comment like this. emai or letter to the paper was only way.
Get on Twitter scream and tag a keyword and its front page news.

Loads of these stories are down to how many retweets or likes they can get.

Seems to be more people upset that people were upset than the number of people actually upset

- - - Updated - - -

you just read it here dark chocolate is racist now

If it is ugly on the basis of it being dark.

[Najnaj]

No, it doesn't. The labels in the OP do not meet the definition of "racist". The notion that someone being "offended" by something and thinking it's "racist" somehow magically makes it "racist" is irrational and stupid.

Not when you add reason and context. In this case the retailer agreed. There is no way in hell that this was intended as racist but since some customers found it to be ...

Also, as a white guy if isn't really my place to decide what a non white person finds offensive unless they are being up the wall unreasonable. The case with the duck might seem a little touchy to me but what the hell do I know?

[niztheundead87]

So racism can only be defined by the person making it not how it makes others feel

- - - Updated - - -



Seems to be more people upset that people were upset than the number of people actually upset

- - - Updated - - -




If it is ugly on the basis of it being dark.

you must live in sad world if you believe is racist.
a)the maker had no racist intentions.he named it ugly on the basis of a story , a metaphor, not any real person.
b) all groups of people can be ugrly or beautiful therefore the arguement is void from the beggining .
c) people like this just take offense for the sake of others to make themselves look better.

[VanishingAct]

Social media is a mistake but you can't say UK hasn't become a caricature of themselves in a authoritarian hellhole kind of way.
Imagine living there holy shit.

[Najnaj]

you must live in sad world if you believe is racist.
a)the maker had no racist intentions.he named it ugly on the basis of a story , a metaphor, not any real person.
b) all groups of people can be ugrly or beautiful therefore the arguement is void from the beggining .
c) people like this just take offense for the sake of others to make themselves look better.

So basically you are so outraged that you are unable to follow the discussion...

[niztheundead87]

So basically you are so outraged that you are unable to follow the discussion...

Read again my previous posts before your come to post nonsense.but off we live in the generation I take offense on everything.

Ask yourself this, would there be an outrage if the ugly duck was made with white chocolate and see why the entire argument is stupid from the beginning

[Mistame]

So racism can only be defined by the person making it not how it makes others feel

No, racism is already defined. If something doesn't meet the definition, it's not racism. That's how words work.

If it is ugly on the basis of it being dark.

This is such an idiotic premise. The context has to be a race or representations of a race for something to be racist. Claiming that saying chocolate is "ugly" because it's "dark" is "racist" is another example of the ignorance stupidity permeating this victim culture crap. What next, preferring a light-colored car over a dark-colored car is "racist"? Grow up.

Not when you add reason and context.

Context and intent can change whether something falls under the definition of a particular word. It does not change the definition itself. The labels were literally not racist. This is an objective fact.

In this case the retailer agreed.

The retailer was protecting their business. Their "agreement" is irrelevant.

There is no way in hell that this was intended as racist but since some customers found it to be ...

So, if someone sees you hug your niece/nephew and thinks you're molesting them, then you're molesting them and should be imprisoned, yeah? That's how absurd your argument is.

Also, as a white guy if isn't really my place to decide what a non white person finds offensive unless they are being up the wall unreasonable. The case with the duck might seem a little touchy to me but what the hell do I know?

People can be as offended as they want to be, but it doesn't change how words work.

[Themius]

No, racism is already defined. If something doesn't meet the definition, it's not racism. That's how words work.



This is such an idiotic premise. The context has to be a race or representations of a race for something to be racist. Claiming that saying chocolate is "ugly" because it's "dark" is "racist" is another example of the ignorance stupidity permeating this victim culture crap. What next, preferring a light-colored car over a dark-colored car is "racist"? Grow up.



Context and intent can change whether something falls under the definition of a particular word. It does not change the definition itself. The labels were literally not racist. This is an objective fact.



The retailer was protecting their business. Their "agreement" is irrelevant.



So, if someone sees you hug your niece/nephew and thinks you're molesting them, then you're molesting them and should be imprisoned, yeah? That's how absurd your argument is.



People can be as offended as they want to be, but it doesn't change how words work.

So referring to dark things as ugly because they’re dark you feel wouldn’t conjure any negative feelings in dark people because the author something something? What a poor argument

[melodramocracy]

If someone's outraged about it, odds are incredibly high that it's ridiculous.

[Najnaj]

No, racism is already defined. If something doesn't meet the definition, it's not racism. That's how words work.



This is such an idiotic premise. The context has to be a race or representations of a race for something to be racist. Claiming that saying chocolate is "ugly" because it's "dark" is "racist" is another example of the ignorance stupidity permeating this victim culture crap. What next, preferring a light-colored car over a dark-colored car is "racist"? Grow up.



Context and intent can change whether something falls under the definition of a particular word. It does not change the definition itself. The labels were literally not racist. This is an objective fact.



The retailer was protecting their business. Their "agreement" is irrelevant.



So, if someone sees you hug your niece/nephew and thinks you're molesting them, then you're molesting them and should be imprisoned, yeah? That's how absurd your argument is.



People can be as offended as they want to be, but it doesn't change how words work.

Holy hell you are confusing topics left right and center here. First and foremost victim vs 3rd party.

Why are you going on and on about definition of words? This has nothing to do with that. A marketing ploy did not go as intended and someone with what is probably a history of feeling less due to skin tone took offense. The retailer agreed and removed the marketing...and yes, to protect business. That is what we are discussing isn't it?

- - - Updated - - -

Read again my previous posts before your come to post nonsense.but off we live in the generation I take offense on everything.

Ask yourself this, would there be an outrage if the ugly duck was made with white chocolate and see why the entire argument is stupid from the beginning

So more generic ranting ....

[Mistame]

So referring to dark things as ugly because they’re dark you feel wouldn’t conjure any negative feelings in dark people because the author something something? What a poor argument

Says the kid using inanimate objects as a platform for some idiotic race-baiting crusade. Grow the fuck up.

First and foremost victim vs 3rd party.

The comparative stupidity is equal.

Why are you going on and on about definition of words?

Because you keep insisting that because some customers thought it was "racist", that makes it racist. That's not how words work.

[Najnaj]

Says the kid using inanimate objects as a platform for some idiotic race-baiting crusade. Grow the fuck up.



The comparative stupidity is equal.



Because you keep insisting that because some customers thought it was "racist", that makes it racist. That's not how words work.

Again, you can not keep things apart and where they belong. If you think that reporting a serious crime you think is being committed against a minor has anything in common with some people feeling that an ad campaign is a bit insensitive I don't know what to say really...other than to cut down on the drama.

...and yes, if they think it is racist it is racist to them. This is not a very hard concept and a retailer wants to keep their customers happy. What exactly is the problem here and what the hell does it have to do with you?

[niztheundead87]

Holy hell you are confusing topics left right and center here. First and foremost victim vs 3rd party.

Why are you going on and on about definition of words? This has nothing to do with that. A marketing ploy did not go as intended and someone with what is probably a history of feeling less due to skin tone took offense. The retailer agreed and removed the marketing...and yes, to protect business. That is what we are discussing isn't it?

- - - Updated - - -



So more generic ranting ....

Saddly you are there only one renting here for something that is ridiculous as people finding chocolate racist.read the lines there was no intention to get offend anyone, the people that took offense do it for the sake of others for no other reason to virtue signal.

Didn't answer the question if they called a White person ugly would that be ok

[Mormolyce]

Indoctrination? They say that themselves, openly, here, on this forum.

It’s about power:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post50815727

The intentions don’t matter:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51054764


So to be clear:

Everything is political:
https://www.popsci.com/spoiler-alert...ng-is-politics

Everything = politics = power

That’s the world we live in; not a world I want to be a part of.

Hold on, you're saying that the ebil essjaydubbleyews think it's all about power. And that's why you do too.

That's how you show you're better than people, by acting exactly like them.

[Stormdash]

Um... have they not heard the story of the ugly duckling that turned into a swan?



People on social media, to quote Linus, are "a disease" of our culture..

Being woke has more social cache in 2019 than being literate.