Ridiculous case of outrage nr....

[Sezh]

No, I couldn't care less what labels they put on them.

Can you understand that some other people might feel bad about it?

[alturic]

Yes. The 2019 approach is to not do it at all. Again a dark colored object could just honestly be ugly, doesn't change the fact that it can be seen as racist. Same can be said about comparing black people to apes. If you can't understand why, you are lost.

So in 2019 you shouldn't label anything that is colored brown or black, even milk chocolate, with a negative word for fear of offending a race? Yea... no, I'll remained associated with people who have brains and don't look at a piece of fucking chocolate as representing a god damn fucking race.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you understand that some other people might feel bad about it?

Can you understand that putting an actual flag from a country on something and labeling it "filthy trash" would be offensive to *any* country? There is a MASSIVE difference between labeling a piece of god damn fucking chocolate as ugly versus putting a flag on them and labeling a single one "filthy trash". Your example would be akin to someone making a "Races as Chocolates" having white chocolate, milk chocolate, dark chocolate and various other colors of chocolate and labeling the dark chocolate one as "ugly", while all the others are labeled positively. In other words, your example is literally calling out a specific thing, and not requiring an epic ton of "looking into" something.

[Sezh]

Can you understand that putting an actual flag from a country on something and labeling it "filthy trash" would be offensive to *any* country? There is a MASSIVE difference between labeling a piece of god damn fucking chocolate as ugly versus putting a flag on them and labeling a single one "filthy trash". Your example would be akin to someone making a "Races as Chocolates" having white chocolate, milk chocolate, dark chocolate and various other colors of chocolate and labeling the dark chocolate one as "ugly", while all the others are labeled positively. In other words, your example is literally calling out a specific thing, and not requiring an epic ton of "looking into" something.

I wouldn't be offended if someone did that to my country flag. But I can understand that others would be. I wouldn't be offended if the white duck said ugly, but I can understand that others would be. Just as I can understand that people are offended by the darkest duck being labeled ugly.

Do I think the creator of the duck had racist motives? Not really. Do I think it was a marketing misstep that deserves reasonable criticism? Sure.

[Hyral]

In the past, being dark/black was considered as a negative or ugly. Being white was not.

Thankfully the name of Ugly to a black hatchling has nothing to do with that. It's a reference to the ugly duckling. An old tale that illustrates the opposite of your claim, that while the duckling was bullied for being different he grows into being a much more beautiful being than those who hurt him. The ugly duckling is an encouraging story. One that has nothing to do with race but with the universal theme of being odd and wanting to belong and overcoming obstacles in your society.

[Mistame]

What if for instance there were two ducks, one girl duck and one boy duck, and the boy duck had the label "intelligent" under it and the girl duck had the label "stupid" under it.

Or if there were ducks with a tiny flag on the back representing different countries, and every country-duck had a positive label under them but under the indonesian flagged duck the label was "filthy trash"?

Would you find any of those offensive? We're still only talking about ducks.

The problem with your analogy is that the ducks in the OP aren't labeled with racial references. That's being inferred by those who are taking offense. If they were marked, "Mixed", "White" and "Black", you'd have an argument. Colors alone are not racial references. They only become racial references when put into the context of human races and then it's the person/people putting it into that context who is/are responsible for it. It's the equivalent of the "So you're saying..." nonsense. If I say, "Brown cars are ugly", and you take that in a racial context, you're the one being an asshole, not me. Even if you're brown.

[Heran]

Can you understand that some other people might feel bad about it?

That's on them, not others. People who feel bad about just about anything shouldn't be catered to.

[Bapestar]

Why did you just post a repeat of your post? No answer?

Because you guys are ignoring it.

[Heran]

Because you guys are ignoring it.

Nope, it's just not relevant at all.

[Bapestar]

So in 2019 you shouldn't label anything that is colored brown or black, even milk chocolate, with a negative word for fear of offending a race? Yea... no, I'll remained associated with people who have brains and don't look at a piece of fucking chocolate as representing a god damn fucking race.

No, but I can see why some people view it as racist.

[alturic]

No, but I can see why some people view it as racist.

I'm trying to decipher if you're saying that you can understand why *anyone* can/will/does get offended at *anything* or not. If you are, well... duh. That's already been proven time and time again by dumb people.

Honestly, racism/race relations/blacks are going backwards, not forwards. Some things I can totally see how people could view something as racist (say the Gucci sweater, as someone who's been called a racists on here, I can understand the why as much as I still think it's stupid) but a god damn piece of chocolate has to be up there for one of the most asinine things someone can claim is racist.

[Bapestar]

I'm trying to decipher if you're saying that you can understand why *anyone* can/will/does get offended at *anything* or not. If you are, well... duh. That's already been proven time and time again by dumb people.

Honestly, racism/race relations/blacks are going backwards, not forwards. Some things I can totally see how people could view something as racist (say the Gucci sweater, as someone who's been called a racists on here, I can understand the why as much as I still think it's stupid) but a god damn piece of chocolate has to be up there for one of the most asinine things someone can claim is racist.

That's not the issue, the problem is the comparison to the white chocolate duck that was labeled fluffy. Basically insinuating white is better. Heineken just got in trouble for the same shit.

[Biske]

I think you're confusing Jesus with the God of the Old Testament.

I saw this mega late, but no. Considering that the guy who posted that specifically said: " A bearded hippie SJW, a Jew moreover" <-he's obviously talking about Jesus. You know, beard, often called a "hippie" by some people, and the fact that Jesus was a Jew, he was 100% talking about Jesus.

[Mistame]

No, but I can see why some people view it as racist.

Because they're idiots and don't understand how words work.

That's not the issue, the problem is the comparison to the white chocolate duck that was labeled fluffy. Basically insinuating white is better. Heineken just got in trouble for the same shit.

Color is only relevant to human races in the context of, well, human races. If someone takes something out of its intended context and turns it into an issue of race, they are the asshole.

[Sezh]

That's on them, not others. People who feel bad about just about anything shouldn't be catered to.

Where do we draw the line? Should it be okay to send death threats to people as well? It's only words.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with your analogy is that the ducks in the OP aren't labeled with racial references. That's being inferred by those who are taking offense. If they were marked, "Mixed", "White" and "Black", you'd have an argument. Colors alone are not racial references. They only become racial references when put into the context of human races and then it's the person/people putting it into that context who is/are responsible for it. It's the equivalent of the "So you're saying..." nonsense. If I say, "Brown cars are ugly", and you take that in a racial context, you're the one being an asshole, not me. Even if you're brown.

So if I make a movie about sheep and all the black sheep steal bikes and are stupid and all the white sheep go to college, is that okay because the colours of the sheep are not put into the context of human races?

[Mistame]

WSo if I make a movie about sheep and all the black sheep steal bikes and are stupid and all the white sheep go to college, is that okay because the colours of the sheep are not put into the context of human races?

The author and their intent is what determines context. Sheep can't ride bikes so your analogy is silly. But if your intent is to make a correlation between the sheep and human races, you are putting it into a racial context. On the other hand, if it's a movie that you've based on the "black sheep of the family" idiom and someone else takes it as "racist", they are putting it into a racial context. Whoever puts it in the racial context is the one in the wrong.

[Sezh]

The author and their intent is what determines context. Sheep can't ride bikes so your analogy is silly. But if your intent is to make a correlation between the sheep and human races, you are putting it into a racial context. On the other hand, if it's a movie that you've based on the "black sheep of the family" idiom and someone else takes it as "racist", they are putting it into a racial context. Whoever puts it in the racial context is the one in the wrong.

Let me just clarify; I don't think the duck-thing is racist because I don't believe the bakery had any racist intent. And in my world, racism cannot exist without intent. So I see what you mean. I do however think it was a stupid marketing move and the bakery should have understood that some people would take offense. But the proper reaction should have been "Hey guys, this wasn't very clever. Maybe you should write something else instead".

[Mistame]

Let me just clarify; I don't think the duck-thing is racist because I don't believe the bakery had any racist intent. And in my world, racism cannot exist without intent. So I see what you mean. I do however think it was a stupid marketing move and the bakery should have understood that some people would take offense. But the proper reaction should have been "Hey guys, this wasn't very clever. Maybe you should write something else instead".

It's stupid in that they didn't account for idiots. I'm on the fence about just how stupid it was. On one hand, one has to be pretty out of touch to not know that there are a lot people who will go out their way to spark outrage. On the other, no one, even a business, should have to cater to stupid people. /shrug