Ridiculous case of outrage nr....

[Trassk]

The worst kind of idiot, is the entitled idiot, like these easily offended ones

[Najnaj]

That's the problem and the pivot point. Have then not given in nothing terrible would have happened. Just how Chick-fil-A haven't given up on their values.

They can only take as much freedom as you are willing to give. Stop giving in and they'll get confused and stumbled. Start taking back and they'll panic and scatter

Freedom? They made a stupid marketing decision ..... Stop being dramatic.

[Mistame]

My point of my saying intentions doesn't matter seems to have gone over your head because critical thinking doesn't seem to be strong.

I understood your point. My point is that it's irrelevant. And it's amusing that you keep throwing around "critical thinking", as if oblivious to the fact your argument/logic is exactly the opposite.

The intention of the story is one thing, that doesn't mean it can't be interpreted another way by a child. If a child reads this story they could take it as "he's pretty because he's white" which literally has happened in focus groups of children. children can't read "intention" easily.

And? Kids are stupid. That's why we have adults, to explain and educate them. The fact remains that the only valid interpretation is the one intended by the author. Interpretations are like opinions, subjective and largely irrelevant. People who take offense to things like this are objectively stupid. Period.

Freedom? They made a stupid marketing decision ..... Stop being dramatic.

If by "stupid marketing decision" you mean "marketing to stupid people", then sure.

[Najnaj]

I understood your point. My point is that it's irrelevant. And it's amusing that you keep throwing around "critical thinking", as if oblivious to the fact your argument/logic is exactly the opposite.



And? Kids are stupid. That's why we have adults, to explain and educate them. The fact remains that the only valid interpretation is the one intended by the author. Interpretations are like opinions, subjective and largely irrelevant. People who take offense to things like this are objectively stupid. Period.



If by "stupid marketing decision" you mean "marketing to stupid people", then sure.

No, I really mean stupid marketing decision. Customers pay their salaries and you want as many as possible. Taking the darkest item and naming it ugly is the first lesson in Marketing No Nos 101. This is not a legal issue or a very important one, the only thing that will happen is that they will have offended a couple of customers and someone made a minor twitter storm out of it.

..and of course the eternally outraged Peterson brigade is once again outraged over some minor shit.

[ohwell]

... I literally thought about the Ugly Duckling as from the story books.

Sweet juniper and boiled Satan, social media outrage...

Yet if the white one was ugly it'd be just fine I'd bet. Welcome to 201X where anything that is dark MUST be named something nice or it's racist, but you're free to be openly bigoted to white, straight, cis, or Christian people.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I really mean stupid marketing decision. Customers pay their salaries and you want as many as possible. Taking the darkest item and naming it ugly is the first lesson in Marketing No Nos 101. This is not a legal issue or a very important one, the only thing that will happen is that they will have offended a couple of customers and someone made a minor twitter storm out of it.

..and of course the eternally outraged Peterson brigade is once again outraged over some minor shit.

Obvious sign you don't really have a valid point: Insert "the outraged 'X' group(insert Trumpsters etc)

There is nothing no-no about referring to a known tale. Mentally handicapped customers should not be a part of your marketing scheme unless you're specifically looking to sell to mentally handicapped people. This is just as silly as the racist black people who got mad that one brand had a white guy in a Wakanda sweater and demanded it be changed.

Anyone who thought that this was racist is in fact a racist and race baiter themselves.

[Biske]

You did not answer my question. I'll repeat it slowly and clearly: what dude, and why does him being a Jew matter?

He's talking about Jesus...

[Najnaj]

Yet if the white one was ugly it'd be just fine I'd bet. Welcome to 201X where anything that is dark MUST be named something nice or it's racist, but you're free to be openly bigoted to white, straight, cis, or Christian people.

- - - Updated - - -



Obvious sign you don't really have a valid point: Insert "the outraged 'X' group(insert Trumpsters etc)

There is nothing no-no about referring to a known tale. Mentally handicapped customers should not be a part of your marketing scheme unless you're specifically looking to sell to mentally handicapped people. This is just as silly as the racist black people who got mad that one brand had a white guy in a Wakanda sweater and demanded it be changed.

Anyone who thought that this was racist is in fact a racist and race baiter themselves.

Yeah, you don't know anything about marketing and you are not getting the point. This is not a legal issue, it is about selling fing chocolate. Avoid all terms that can possibly be offensive if you want as many people as possible to buy your stuff. Same idea as putting 3 balls up for sale and naming the biggest ball ugly. It isn't really wrong but it is really stupid if you want to sell balls.

[Mistame]

No, I really mean stupid marketing decision. Customers pay their salaries and you want as many as possible. Taking the darkest item and naming it ugly is the first lesson in Marketing No Nos 101.

Generally-speaking, sure. But the labels were a reference to a fairy tale. So the only thing truly "stupid" about it is the reaction of those "offended" by them.

[Irian]

Just idiots being idiots again. But being outraged because of outrage is just proving yourself the bigger clown.

We need to stop giving publicity to really inconsequential, niche opinions of powerless people who aren't going to do anything about it.

LOL... no, the guy that created Linux:

The Creator of Linux Says Facebook, Twitter, And Instagram Are "a Disease"
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-inv...s-modern-media

Wow, well this guy just gained a fan in me. I've felt like I've been screaming into the void when I say that twitter and facebook are actually destructive to communication and socialization that incorporates systems that lead to outrage, echo chambers and the voice of a few idiots becoming louder and louder. The whole model is designed to give information in a way that is both too much and not enough, where one single subject can't be seriously discussed due to text limits but posts are so effortless and mindless that you get to witness an almost endless stream of consciousness from all sorts of posters, a lot of them extremely stupid or divisive.

Thank god at least someone who's smarter than me has the same feelings because I've felt like an old hag screaming out into the void at the age of 27.

[Cruor]

As other people have said, had the white chocolate been Ugly this wouldn't have been an issue. I'm more annoyed that the company gave in and take it down, I'll make a note never to buy their products, just like communist ultra left scum Ben & Jerry's

[Grimbold21]

I don't disagree with the remark that giving these incidents publicity makes it worse, on the contrary, I agree wholeheartedly. Social media has its perks without a doubt, but it has negative aspects too. And the media certain capitalizes on it, from the cliques they know they are certain to get.

My question is how is the proliferation of social media platforms related to the rise of political correctness? Or is it just a matter that social media has allowed for the instantaneous showcasing of such situations?

Now, I'm aware of the opponents argument that PC isn't on the rise, that critics are just using isolated incidents to blow something out of proportion, certainly with the help of the media. I can see the merit of that argument.

But it is hard to quantify and separate the two. Such cases have undoubtedly risen throughout the last few years, or has the media really been exacerbating it? Granted, there are certain outlets out there capitalizing on such events to forward their agenda.

However, this is PC we're talking about it. If you're for it or not, isn't relevant. These situations have real life ramifications and I personally believe that we live in times where governmental bodies tend to take the side of PC because A) they're genuinely interested in promoting welfare of their citizens B) It's pure virtue signaling and C) They're afraid of the backlash, even though I'm not entirely certain that the PC crowd outnumbers its critics. I think that you took a facebook comment section or whatever, you'd see more people ridiculing such situations.

I understand, I too roll my eyes when I see news pieces like these. I'm split between thinking the media is just garnering clicks, or here we go again another case of crazy PCers, or this is a nothing-burger.

But they're not, they have consequences and in this case a store had to check itself because some people choose to interpret a product in a certain way. We may choose to interpret as ridiculous, but the ramifications are there, and if you disagree with the perspective employed, then I think it's important also that we debate the underlying themes, because this is about societal values clashing.

Or, to be fair, it could just be people with nothing better to do.

[Themius]

Yet if the white one was ugly it'd be just fine I'd bet. Welcome to 201X where anything that is dark MUST be named something nice or it's racist, but you're free to be openly bigoted to white, straight, cis, or Christian people.

- - - Updated - - -



Obvious sign you don't really have a valid point: Insert "the outraged 'X' group(insert Trumpsters etc)

There is nothing no-no about referring to a known tale. Mentally handicapped customers should not be a part of your marketing scheme unless you're specifically looking to sell to mentally handicapped people. This is just as silly as the racist black people who got mad that one brand had a white guy in a Wakanda sweater and demanded it be changed.

Anyone who thought that this was racist is in fact a racist and race baiter themselves.

If the white one were ugly instead of this being a topic where everyone calls people who think it can be racist stupid we have a thread of people saying how racist it is and how if it was a brown duck something something.

[Coolthulhu]

He's talking about Jesus...

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

[Mistame]

where everyone calls people who think it can be racist stupid

This might be hard for you to grasp, but whether something is or isn't racist is not subjective. And what determines its status as such is the context and intent of the author, no one else. Being a minority doesn't give you the right to declare something that wasn't intended to be racist as such because you "feel like it could be taken that way".

[Themius]

This might be hard for you to grasp, but whether something is or isn't racist is not subjective. And what determines its status as such is the context and intent of the author, no one else. Being a minority doesn't give you the right to declare something that wasn't intended to be racist as such because you "feel like it could be taken that way".

This is a rather silly argument that ignores history. People say calling Brazil nuts nigger toes isn’t racist because they’re talking about a nut and have no problem with black people and didn’t intend to offend black people.

When people kept mammy jars was that racist? Black people felt it was racist but whites "objectively" didn't make it to "be" racist. Instead the climate of the time made it something rather acceptable but if you ask the individual they'd often say they're not racist and their intent wasn't mean to be.

Do you think the intent matters much more to the point where no such thing is racist because the person may not have "purposefully" intended it to be eve though it is?

"Being a minority doesn't give you the right to declare something that wasn't intended to be racist as such"

This sounds just really really poor.

It essentially says

"Chinese people get to judge whether something they've done is anti-filipino, not filipinos"

So if a Chinese person says

"filipinos aren't real asians"

and then declares it isn't racist and that filipinos can't describe it as such because "they're a minority and their intent was not racist"

That just seems dumb no?

Your argument hinges on:

minorities don't get to say whether something seems racist to them if a person who isn't a minority said it isn't racist

Does this mean when a person says I can't go to a restaurant because I'm gay, but then say it is due to their religion not them being a homophobe that I can't call them a homophobe?

[Misuteri]

How about just not labeling things as “ugly” anymore? Try to inject some positivity into the world and you probably won’t have any PR disasters, it’s not complicated.

Ugly is a real thing, sorry.

[Najnaj]

This might be hard for you to grasp, but whether something is or isn't racist is not subjective. And what determines its status as such is the context and intent of the author, no one else. Being a minority doesn't give you the right to declare something that wasn't intended to be racist as such because you "feel like it could be taken that way".

Intent does matter but it does not negate consequence even when that consequence is mostly subjective. 99++% of the world has a legal system (and a matching moral code) based on this.

- - - Updated - - -

Ugly is a real thing, sorry.

So is stupid. Your reply has nothing to do with what you are replying to.

[Heran]

This is a rather silly argument that ignores history.

History is irrelevant, racism has a definition and if something does not fit this definition then it is not racism.

[Uselessrouge]

dont like it? dont buy it

stop crying like bitches for evrything lul

oh right forgot its generation snowflakes , will be hurt by words and jokes.


this planet is full of people crying for useless stuff what happend .. so bored in life they need to get something usless to have any emotion in life?

[Mistame]

This is a rather silly argument that ignores history. People say calling Brazil nuts nigger toes isn’t racist because they’re talking about a nut and have no problem with black people and didn’t intend to offend black people.

When people kept mammy jars was that racist? Black people felt it was racist but whites "objectively" didn't make it to "be" racist. Instead the climate of the time made it something rather acceptable but if you ask the individual they'd often say they're not racist and their intent wasn't mean to be.

What part of "context and intent" don't you understand? Also, stop straw-manning.

"Being a minority doesn't give you the right to declare something that wasn't intended to be racist as such"

This sounds just really really poor.

It essentially says

<more straw men>

No, it says that just because a minority thinks something sounds offensive and/or "racist" doesn't automatically make it offensive/racist. That's not how that works.

Your argument hinges on:

minorities don't get to say whether something seems racist to them if a person who isn't a minority said it isn't racist

No, a minority can think whatever they want is "racist", but it's only actually racist if it meets the requirements of the definition. This is easily demonstrated using your straw men and the OP. The term "nigger" has always been racist, as it's a derogatory term used to denigrate a minority. By extension, "nigger toes" is also inherently racist. "Mammy jars" are racist because they stereotype a minority in a particularly offensive manner. In both cases, both the intent and context are racist.

In the case of the OP, however, the packaging clearly references the "Ugly Duckling" fairy tale and in no way refers to humans, much less a specific race. Thus it's inherently not "racist". You're entitled to your own opinion. You can argue until you're blue in the fact about the various ways it could be taken, etc, but that doesn't mean anything and it certainly doesn't make it actually racist, because, again, you don't get make that determination.

Intent does matter but it does not negate consequence even when that consequence is mostly subjective.

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