Three Ireland removes ad after mob misinterpret it

Uriel.

Merces wrote: »

Another day another trans bashing thread.

What the actual f**k?

Clandestine

Merces wrote: »

Another day another trans bashing thread. As a transsexual myself I'm delighted they decided to remove that ad'.

No one is bashing trans people, only the offense that people took to this ad.

Merces wrote: »

My life as a transwoman is hard enough what with job discrimination and parental rejection

I'm sorry to hear that

Merces wrote: »

Moreover they people complaining about it being removed really need to understand economics. They were not forced to remove the ad, they choose to remove it- supply and demand etc.

They chose to remove it because they were set upon by the perpetually offended social justice brigade, who want anything that they misconstrue as being offensive removed - and threaten action against those who don't bow down

Eeden

To be fair, transphobia is still a huge, huge deal, and something that I've become much more aware of in recent times. It seems to be one of the last "acceptable" things to point and laugh at, which must be so wearying (to say the least) if you are transgender.

I'm not transgender, but I have to admit, when I saw the photograph that is the first thing I thought of - that they were taking the piss out of transgender people. You can't see the "explanation" in the Journal.ie photo.

Dogowner55

"Here lies Firedorn, a hero in bed.

He once was alive, but now he's dead.

The last woman he bedded, turned out a man

And crying in shame, off a cliff he ran."

Wibbs

Merces wrote: »

They were not forced to remove the ad, they choose to remove it- supply and demand etc. Seriously guys it's economics 101.

Utter nonsense. These days all it needs is a couple of loud voices on social media to shame companies and people. Nothing to do with supply and demand or "economics 101" Facepalm*. The overwhelming majority of people who walked past that ad, either didn't notice it or didn't care and certainly didn't take to arsebook and twatter to complain about it.

Custardpi

Eeden wrote: »

I'm not transgender, but I have to admit, when I saw the photograph that is the first thing I thought of - that they were taking the piss out of transgender people. You can't see the "explanation" in the Journal.ie photo.

But why would a company just randomly decide to insult transgender people? What would be the point? Would their next ad then say "Have Fun at the Lynching With 3 All You Can Eat Data?"

jahalpin

Have people lost the plot completely?

The ad was referring to the ending of the Crying Game, a film

I find it highly unlikely that anyone would actually be offended by this ad and this is yet another example of the PC brigade overreacting to the simplest of things

jahalpin

Custardpi wrote: »

But why would a company just randomly decide to insult transgender people? What would be the point? Would their next ad then say "Have Fun at the Lynching With 3 All You Can Eat Data?"

How old are you? I bet you're probably not old enough to have even heard of the film that they are referring to ("The Crying Game" - look it up!!!!!)

Merces

Merces wrote: »

Another day another trans bashing thread. As a transsexual myself I'm delighted they decided to remove that ad'. My life as a transwoman is hard enough what with job discrimination and parental rejection without being taken the piss out off on national t.v. via insulting stereotypes. Try my life for a week and you would soon change your tune. You are on the wrong side of history.

Moreover the people complaining about it being removed really need to understand economics. They were not forced to remove the ad, they choose to remove it- supply and demand etc. Seriously guys it's economics 101.

What are you raving about, you loon? Woe is me indeed.

Eugene Norman

Wibbs wrote: »

Well if you live in the liberal western world where all your basic needs are met and the majority of the whims of the over stimulated online mind are catered for, you kinda have to make up drama to get the drama fix that seems to be required by the type.

I'd prefer American females got more upset by their countries rape of the Middle East than what it is called. As would the Middle East.

jahalpin

jahalpin wrote: »

How old are you? I bet you're probably not old enough to have even heard of the film that they are referring to ("The Crying Game" - look it up!!!!!)

They weren't making the point you think they were

Grab All Association

Custardpi wrote: »

Love this quote:

So you don't understand the reference (which is fair enough, not everyone has seen The Crying Game) but you've still decided that it's offensive?

But in The Crying Game she was a he.

It was brilliant! There was this great bit.
There was this girl, then you find out it's really a man! - He got his lad out.
You only see it for a second but you get the message.
I didn't know what it was, it's so long since I've seen one.
It was like your Billy's! Not at all.
Billy's is rounder at the top.

Little CuChulainn

Custardpi wrote: »

That's some of the milder stuff actually. Have a look for "Otherkin" & "Headmates" there. :eek::eek::eek:

That stuff is hilarious. I read one where the person claimed to be a former deity and in thier current life they were a psychic vampire, because they liked happy social situations, and a dragon, because they collect stuff. You'd think they are crazy or trolling but they aren't.

As to the billboard. I get that people could have misinterpreted it at first glance but even an idiot would get it after looking again and thinking about it, especially when it's viewed in the context of their other ads. It pains me that we have to cater to those that are over sensitive and quick to anger.

Eugene Norman

Chris___ wrote: »

But in The Crying Game she was a he.

Ok in this fictional film he was a she. But you didn't get to see the end of it because your data ran out.

osarusan

Chris___ wrote: »

But in The Crying Game she was a he.

This is what I was thinking - it would be other way round.

I don't think it's a reference to a specific film finale, just in general.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Even with it being about The Crying Game (or some other film, fictional or otherwise), would it not still be transphobic language to say 'he is a she' or 'she is a he' about a transgender person? This is a subject I don't know much about but try to learn.

Dogowner55

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Ok in this fictional film he was a she. But you didn't get to see the end of it because your data ran out.

Don't you find out he's a dude like very early in the film like in the first half hr or so.

Maybe they are referencing ace ventura, thats one happens at the end

GLaDOS

If nothing else, I'll never be able to watch The Crying Game after this thread, ending's been ruined :pac:

Call Me Jimmy

mother of non-specific deity!

Custardpi

Lindsey Faint Maroon wrote: »

would it not still be transphobic language to say 'he is a she' or 'she is a he' about a transgender person? This is a subject I don't know much about but try to learn.

If you're constantly looking for things to be offended by, as a small but vocal body of people online are then anything can be seen as being "phobic" about something. Offense is something that is taken, not given. Most people aren't trying to oppress or offend others. Taking a step back & dialling the outrage-o-meter back from 11 would be the healthy thing to do in this & similar cases.

Fleawuss

Bad advert. Obscure reference that needed explanation. Trans people have enough to put up with without the very odd "selling point" of this ad. If you're communicating with the public you'd expect the creators of an ad campaign to understand that an Irish audience is more diverse than was previously allowed to be admitted. Maybe referring to a 1992 movie says a lot about it.

Dogowner55

ScienceNerd wrote: »

If nothing else, I'll never be able to watch The Crying Game after this thread, ending's been ruined :pac:

It happens early on you find out it's a dude that not and ending spoiler and you would realise in the first 5 min anyway, it's not a convincing trap

osarusan

Three said it is part of a series of 'stuff you miss when your data runs out' - is this the first one of the series to be seen or have there been others?

NachoBusiness

Fleawuss wrote: »

Bad advert. Obscure reference that needed explanation. Trans people have enough to put up with without the very odd "selling point" of this ad. If you're communicating with the public you'd expect the creators of an ad campaign to understand that an Irish audience is more diverse than was previously allowed to be admitted. Maybe referring to a 1992 movie says a lot about it.

Like I said above, it would be understandable if the large font, minus the reference, was transphobic, but it's not, in the least.

Secondly, in the movie The Crying Game, He doesn't tun out to be a She at all.. She actually turns out to be a He.

Custardpi

Fleawuss wrote: »

Bad advert. Obscure reference that needed explanation. Trans people have enough to put up with without the very odd "selling point" of this ad. If you're communicating with the public you'd expect the creators of an ad campaign to understand that an Irish audience is more diverse than was previously allowed to be admitted. Maybe referring to a 1992 movie says a lot about it.

So it's not a great advert. So, what? Plenty of those about which don't attract that kind of outrage. Once again, why would a company decide to randomly insult a minority group as a "selling point"? It makes no sense if you stop & think about it for a moment. Sadly that appears to be too much of an effort for some people.

Fudge You

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH as the days and weeks go by I am really getting a pain in my behind with the near constant array of a minority of special snowflakes taking "offence" at every bloody thing and crying "phobic" at every bloody turn.

I dont know if it is offensive or not.
But I do think it is the an awful ad. Just terrible.

riffmongous

ScienceNerd wrote: »

If nothing else, I'll never be able to watch The Crying Game after this thread, ending's been ruined :pac:

It's not even the ending though, that section is bookended by two IRA plots that no one ever remembers

Dogowner55

Custardpi wrote: »

So it's not a great advert. So, what? Plenty of those about which don't attract that kind of outrage. Once again, why would a company decide to randomly insult a minority group as a "selling point"? It makes no sense if you stop & think about it for a moment. Sadly that appears to be too much of an effort for some people.

It wasn't insulting though

Custardpi

Dogowner55 wrote: »

It wasn't insulting though

Eh, that's the point I'm making....

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Custardpi wrote: »

If you're constantly looking for things to be offended by, as a small but vocal body of people online are then anything can be seen as being "phobic" about something. Offense is something that is taken, not given. Most people aren't trying to oppress or offend others. Taking a step back & dialling the outrage-o-meter back from 11 would be the healthy thing to do in this & similar cases.

Well misgendering someone by saying 'he is a she' or 'she is a he' sounds like both trying to oppress that person's identity and offend them if you're aware they're transgender and go by particular pronouns. Just because it might not be intentional, doesn't mean it's not problematic.