Three Ireland removes ad after mob misinterpret it

zeffabelli

Why do I sense that I will wake up next week and the use of non gender neutral pronouns will be on the moral police list.

This tyranny of sensitivity is micro fascism.

I am sick to death of the LGBT community at this stage. I'm sick of feminists. I'm sick of men's rights, I'm sick of students suing professors for not letting them use Ebonics. I'm sick of all this special interest whinging. And whatever sympathy and tolerance I had before has consistently been eroded by this kind of nonsense.

I'm sick of therapy talk infiltrating policy and law.

It's like the world is suddenly full of 6 year olds. Seriously, not everyone is going to love you, stop demanding that they do.

Little CuChulainn

zeffabelli wrote: »

Why do I sense that I will wake up next week and the use of non gender neutral pronouns will be on the moral police list.

This tyranny of sensitivity is micro fascism.

I am sick to death of the LGBT community at this stage. I'm sick of feminists. I'm sick of men's rights, I'm sick of students suing professors for not letting them use Ebonics. I'm sick of all this special interest whinging. And whatever sympathy and tolerance I had before has consistently been eroded by this kind of nonsense.

I'm sick of therapy talk infiltrating policy and law.

It's like the world is suddenly full of 6 year olds. Seriously, not everyone is going to love you, stop demanding that they do.

The pronouns are ze and zir.

Wibbs

+1 Zeff, though I'd be focused on the self appointed arbiters of "offence" rather than the communities themselves. EG in the real world(™) I know and have known a lot of gay folks and down the years not once have I heard the professional victimhood spiel from any of them.

zeffabelli

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 Zeff, though I'd be focused on the self appointed arbiters of "offence" rather than the communities themselves. EG in the real world(™) I know and have known a lot of gay folks and down the years not once have I heard the professional victimhood spiel from any of them.

The special interest groups encourage it. It really gained momentum in the 1990s, the age of androgyny... Violence against women's act...perception is reality...I identify as black therefore I am black...

Therapy talk then started infiltrating policy. Remember the memory wars? Domestic violence used to be a system of repetition behaviours with consequences, now it's name calling and using logic in an argument. You really want legal consequences over this nonsense?

It has just gotten worse and worse.

Now we have entire generations expecting everyone to love them. No not everyone is going to love you. We have students suing professors over absolute nonsense, colleges with their own justice systems, family court is a hotbed of this crap.

Years ago I had to finally tell a gay friend to shut up already, that this gay gay gay...yeah I get your gay...I don't give a ****. I won't call you fag if you don't call me breeder. And no not everything is a phalluc symbol, in a world full of objects there are bound to be those longer than they are wide.

Get a grip.

Grab All Association

frostyjacks wrote: »

When I was growing up we all believed gays and transsexuals etc to be really hypersensitive drama queens, always making a song and dance over nothing. Later we were taught that that was wrong, that that was a stereotype, and they're actually the same as you and me. But now I can see that my first impression was correct; they really are a bunch of sissies. There was nothing in that ad worth complaining about. Just an excuse to cry victim.

To be fair it's the PC vlogger/blogger attention whore types who are doing all the moaning.

enfant terrible

Links234 wrote: »

Well, yes actually. Both Vodafone and Paddy Power have run ads that had goes at transgender people just off the top of my head. Trans people are often just the butt of jokes, so it's quite an easy assumption to make if you're on the recieving end of that.

Have males or females ever been the butt of jokes in ads?

cruais

Everything is gone way too PC.

It seems that if you look the wrong way or have a different view to the majorities, that you run the risk of been called racist, sexist or homophobic.

What happened to freedom of speech and opinion?

zeffabelli

enfant terrible wrote: »

Have males or females ever been the butt of jokes in ads?

Energia outsourcing dad ad. Surprised there wasn't mass protests.

efb

zeffabelli wrote: »

Energia outsourcing dad ad. Surprised there wasn't mass protests.

I though their sacking the daughter one was more than crass

Niemoj

People will get offended by anything these days.

kidneyfan

That's pretty shockingly transphobic. She was a she who happened to have been born in a body that was different from the body that was congruent with her brain.
Mad levels of Cis Privilege on this discussion.

enfant terrible

zeffabelli wrote: »

Energia outsourcing dad ad. Surprised there wasn't mass protests.

efb wrote: »

I though their sacking the daughter one was more than crass

Were those ads withdrawn?

kupus

zeffabelli wrote: »

The special interest groups encourage it. It really gained momentum in the 1990s, the age of androgyny... Violence against women's act...perception is reality...I identify as black therefore I am black...

Therapy talk then started infiltrating policy. Remember the memory wars? Domestic violence used to be a system of repetition behaviours with consequences, now it's name calling and using logic in an argument. You really want legal consequences over this nonsense?

It has just gotten worse and worse.

Now we have entire generations expecting everyone to love them. No not everyone is going to love you. We have students suing professors over absolute nonsense, colleges with their own justice systems, family court is a hotbed of this crap.

Years ago I had to finally tell a gay friend to shut up already, that this gay gay gay...yeah I get your gay...I don't give a ****. I won't call you fag if you don't call me breeder. And no not everything is a phalluc symbol, in a world full of objects there are bound to be those longer than they are wide.

Get a grip.

I blame liberalism for this. Imo liberalism is based on me myself and I. The feeling that I can do this. I can be what I want. I I I I . It's never about WE. Unless it's in the context of minority groups.
It's nauseating.

PopePalpatine

I can't believe they didn't use The Sixth Sense's twist instead.

Little CuChulainn

kidneyfan wrote: »

That's pretty shockingly transphobic. She was a she who happened to have been born in a body that was different from the body that was congruent with her brain.
Mad levels of Cis Privilege on this discussion.

Hard to tell if this is sarcasm.

Merces

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Not nonsense at all. If it was in their best economic interests to leave the ad' they would have but they didn't. Corporations make decisions based on economic interests. Economics 101 again. Based on your posts you seem like an intelligent person. I'm puzzled as to how you fail to grasp the rational for the ads removal.

conorhal

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder of 'political correctness' wasn't invented as form of bread and circuses to keep the masses sniping about the petty things, a sort of political firebreak, so that their outrage burns out before it reaches a critical mass that turns on our 'masters', kind of like the Joe Duffy show for the D4 set.

K4t

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.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Either wrap yourself up in cotton wool or become the type of person who doesn't get offended by every slight - real or imagined.

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

You really honestly can't do or say anything anymore without offending someone the way society has gone.

While nobody has the right to not be offended, everybody has the right to be offended.

rubadub

efb wrote: »

So what movie is it? Boys don't Cry???

There was no reveal in that film. And none in Albert Nobbs. The fact they did not say "she was a he" would lead me to think they wanted to get people thinking & talking about it, as it is clearly not a crying game reference, and it worked a treat too. They just kept it vague.

The King of Moo wrote: »

My initial thought was that it was a "laddish" joke about some someone unknowingly "scoring with" a transgender person, so it's very easy to see that it could be seen as using transgender people as the object of a cheap stupid joke. I think it's disingenuous to say that's not apparent.

But again its the wrong way around, that should be "she was a he". I think they probably chose the opposite since they though people might pick it up as a "lad's joke" and get offended.

I'd say the whingers are pouring over the other ads in the campaign looking for offence, bless.

K4t

Merces wrote: »

Not nonsense at all. If it was in their best economic interests to leave the ad' they would have but they didn't. Corporations make decisions based on economic interests. Economics 101 again. Based on your posts you seem like an intelligent person. I'm puzzled as to how you fail to grasp the rational for the ads removal.

Exactly.

Some people obviously think that private companies engage in advertising for the benefit of the public, to cheer them up, give them a laugh etc. Three engaged with, and enforced their views upon, the public, with the primary objective of increasing their revenue, and by retracting the ad and issuing a statement of apology, did the exact same thing. While the pc brigade might sometimes be guilty of standing up for every single thing, it's clear that Three stand for nothing, except of course their profits, which is fine- But when they enter the arena of advertising, and the public domain, they should absolutely expect to have their ideas criticized, ridiculed, taken offense to and so on.

efb

Maybe they put the ad up to be withdrawn? Maximum publicity etc?

ceegee

Dont see why people jumped to the crying game conclusion, when its clearly the other way around.

Bob from Blackadder, Jake Boyman in the Simpsons. Its a storyline used in a sh*tload of tv shows and movies, but no, rather than think about what they're reading people jump straight to outrage

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SweetPollyOliver

Cold War Kid

kupus wrote: »

I blame liberalism for this. Imo liberalism is based on me myself and I. The feeling that I can do this. I can be what I want. I I I I . It's never about WE. Unless it's in the context of minority groups.
It's nauseating.

Thought conservatism was the one that was all about the individual, and socialism more aligned with liberal thought?

Tbh, while I agree the reaction to this by the perpetually offended is ridiculous, there's a lot of people falling over themselves to be equally outraged about this oppressive political correctness all over the place. I only see it on certain websites, which I can avoid. Day to day I rarely see it.

Custardpi

Thing is though, the outrage culture is seeping into the mainstream. The rise of the "clickbait" model of journalism means that formerly serious publications such as The Irish Times or The Guardian will now happily run articles about how "offensive" something is as they know it will attract readers.

Wibbs

Merces wrote: »

Not nonsense at all. If it was in their best economic interests to leave the ad' they would have but they didn't. Corporations make decisions based on economic interests. Economics 101 again. Based on your posts you seem like an intelligent person. I'm puzzled as to how you fail to grasp the rational for the ads removal.

The rationale involved stemmed from a minute number of complaints by a minute number of people which forced them to remove the ads. These tiny loud offence junkies are wielding power way above their number and this is increasing and is well dodgy. Look at the various "scandals" over the last couple of years. The tee shirt astronomer dude. All hell and feelz broke lose from the same tiny minority kicked off by a hack in the US and it overshadowed the fantastic science(and the women who were part of it). The university don more recently hounded out of his job by yet another hack who was extremely economical with the reporting of the incident(and her qualifications). These muppets now have the power to kill careers and ruin people's lives on a whim of their ivory tower offence mongering. That crap needs to be questioned and questioned hard every single time. Doesn't always mean the offence mongers don't have a point, but wider society must scrutinise each case and if found wanting call it for the empty trouble making bullshít it is.

Little CuChulainn

ceegee wrote: »

Dont see why people jumped to the crying game conclusion, when its clearly the other way around.

Bob from Blackadder, Jake Boyman in the Simpsons. Its a storyline used in a sh*tload of tv shows and movies, but no, rather than think about what they're reading people jump straight to outrage

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SweetPollyOliver

It's the most famous film with that kind of reveal in it. The fact the sexes are reversed in the ad isn't exactly a big deal if it's the twist you are trying to highlight moreso than the film itself.

Taco Chips

zeffabelli wrote: »

Why do I sense that I will wake up next week and the use of non gender neutral pronouns will be on the moral police list.

This tyranny of sensitivity is micro fascism.

I am sick to death of the LGBT community at this stage. I'm sick of feminists. I'm sick of men's rights, I'm sick of students suing professors for not letting them use Ebonics. I'm sick of all this special interest whinging. And whatever sympathy and tolerance I had before has consistently been eroded by this kind of nonsense.

I'm sick of therapy talk infiltrating policy and law.

It's like the world is suddenly full of 6 year olds. Seriously, not everyone is going to love you, stop demanding that they do.

Oh yes its so tiring to listen to all these minority groups complaining about marginalisation, daily prejudice and rah rah rah. When are things going to be fair for me again - the downtrodden white, heterosexual, cisgender male. :rolleyes: You need to grow up. Is it so much to ask for people to have the mildest bit of consideration for the respect and decency of others? You may be tired of listening to people complain about incidents like this but I can assure you the trans community are a damn sight more tired of having to deal with stuff like this and much worse every day too.

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 Zeff, though I'd be focused on the self appointed arbiters of "offence" rather than the communities themselves. EG in the real world(™) I know and have known a lot of gay folks and down the years not once have I heard the professional victimhood spiel from any of them.

I am delighted that your gay friends never felt there was enough prejudice directed towards them to complain about it to you. What a great anecdote and it surely goes to show that all the other LGBT individuals were talking complete nonsense about systemic homophobia and transphobia ingrained into society over the years. Glad you cleared that up that they were just a bunch of drama queens.

Chris___ wrote: »

To be fair it's the PC vlogger/blogger attention whore types who are doing all the moaning.

Like who? To me it looks like ordinary people advocating on behalf of their family, friends and others who are affected by issues like this. And thank god for them because the effort would be a whole lot more difficult if it wasn't for them.

cruais wrote: »

Everything is gone way too PC.

It seems that if you look the wrong way or have a different view to the majorities, that you run the risk of been called racist, sexist or homophobic.

What happened to freedom of speech and opinion?

Expressions like this really irk me. "What happened to freedom of speech". Nothing happened to it. What changed is other people's tolerance towards listening to discriminatory bull****. You have every right to spout your crap, as you have done in your thread. But you aren't entitled to people to agree with your opinion, acknowledge your opinion or even respect it. All you have is a right to say it. Just like I have the right to say I've heard better arguments between toddlers. But thats probably what really annoys you, you're running out of people who will sit around and go "right on" and agree with you.

I also noticed that none of the response over the last few pages had anything to do with some of the points that I made, just the same posters restating the same nonsense they had already posted earlier in the thread. Completely pointless but I guess they were looking for the last word rather than try to justify themselves.

wp_rathead

Taco I appreciate your post, if the add WAS making fun/mocking the Transgender community I'd be the first to condemn it
But the add wasn't mocking anyone Trans
Some people interpreted it wrong which is unfortunate but it's not an offensive add

K4t

Wibbs wrote: »

The rationale involved stemmed from a minute number of complaints by a minute number of people which forced them to remove the ads.

I'll stop you right there - surely you can see the oxymoron? They weren't forced to remove the ads, and certainly not by a minute number of complaints and people - Three decided to remove the ads because they believed it was better for their business - they had a choice.

Wibbs

Taco Chips wrote: »

the downtrodden white, heterosexual, cisgender male.

Rolleyes indeed. The second you read "cisgender" brace yourself in the near surety that what follows is going to be fun.

Glad you cleared that up that they were just a bunch of drama queens.

Oh hang on… was I asleep when you put those words in my mouth? Funny how I said exactly nothing of the sort. Standard operational procedure in such debates mind you. A twist on the assume lowest motive in your opponent and run with that. More subtle than shouting [insert group here]phobic or [insert group here]ist, but not by much.

Taco Chips

wp_rathead wrote: »

Taco I appreciate your post, if the add WAS making fun/mocking the Transgender community I'd be the first to condemn it
But the add wasn't mocking anyone Trans
Some people interpreted it wrong which is unfortunate but it's not an offensive add

But my point was just because it didn't set out to be mocking, it was seen and read in that way. And thats careless. It's fine for Three to say that wasn't their intention but that doesn't undo the fact that it made people feel mocked and unpleasant. That's the root of the issue and it speaks to the wider problem. "Oh I didn't mean to upset you with my rude comment". Well then try to stop and consider how your words might impact others in the future. It's as simple as that, we teach kids the same. Just be responsible. I can appreciate that on a larger level, what has become acceptable to joke about in society has changed very dramatically over the last few years and it can be hard to know what's "fair game" but thats what marketers should be aware of. A simple rule of thumb is to think "how would I feel in my day if I saw this joke made in my expense". If the answer is not good then exercise a bit of humanity and adjust your comment. That's what Im trying to explain.

jimgoose

Wibbs wrote: »

Rolleyes indeed. The second you read "cisgender"...

This was a new one on me, so I Googled it. The Wikipedia article begins thus:

Cisgender or cissexual (often abbreviated to simply cis) describes related types of gender identity perceptions, where individuals' experiences of their own gender agree with the sex they were assigned at birth.[1] Sociologists Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook define cisgender as a label for "individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity"

I'm sorry, but we appear to be speaking the bollocks in modern Western society. I put it down to a dearth of sabre-tooth tigers to run from. :pac::pac::pac:

For Forks Sake

Custardpi wrote: »

Thing is though, the outrage culture is seeping into the mainstream. The rise of the "clickbait" model of journalism means that formerly serious publications such as The Irish Times or The Guardian will now happily run articles about how "offensive" something is as they know it will attract readers.

What Happened Next Will Cause You To Re-evaluate Your Life Hit Yourself In The Face With A Hammer.

Wibbs

K4t wrote: »

I'll stop you right there - surely you can see the oxymoron? They weren't forced to remove the ads, and certainly not by a minute number of complaints and people - Three decided to remove the ads because they believed it was better for their business - they had a choice.

That's the problem and my point. It is more and more the case that a few loud voices online can force companies and people to back down because they well know and have enough previous examples of the out of proportion shítstorm this small number of noticeboxes can cause for them. So it's simply easier to say "oh here we go again. Just pull the ad, it's not worth the bloody grief from these eejits".

Carlos Orange

Wibbs wrote: »

Rolleyes indeed. The second you read "cisgender" brace yourself in the near surety that what follows is going to be fun.

At least there wasn't an old this time.

Links234

K4t wrote: »

I'll stop you right there - surely you can see the oxymoron? They weren't forced to remove the ads, and certainly not by a minute number of complaints and people - Three decided to remove the ads because they believed it was better for their business - they had a choice.

I'd say what probably happened was that they didn't even realise the ad could've been read that way, and once it was pointed out, they went oops. It's pretty clear they hadn't intended any offense in the first place, so what happened was most likely just a marketing decision.

ceegee

Taco Chips wrote: »

But my point was just because it didn't set out to be mocking, it was seen and read in that way. And thats careless. It's fine for Three to say that wasn't their intention but that doesn't undo the fact that it made people feel mocked and unpleasant. That's the root of the issue and it speaks to the wider problem. "Oh I didn't mean to upset you with my rude comment". Well then try to stop and consider how your words might impact others in the future. It's as simple as that, we teach kids the same. Just be responsible. I can appreciate that on a larger level, what has become acceptable to joke about in society has changed very dramatically over the last few years and it can be hard to know what's "fair game" but thats what marketers should be aware of. A simple rule of thumb is to think "how would I feel in my day if I saw this joke made in my expense". If the answer is not good then exercise a bit of humanity and adjust your comment. That's what Im trying to explain.

It made people feel mocked because they were too f*cking thick to read the whole sign and realise what the ad was about.

Should we go out and burn all copies of Shakespeare's work because these same people might be offended by twelfth night?

jimgoose

Links234 wrote: »

I'd say what probably happened was that they didn't even realise the ad could've been read that way, and once it was pointed out, they went oops. It's pretty clear they hadn't intended any offense in the first place, so what happened was most likely just a marketing decision.

I wouldn't imagine Hutchison Telecom decided one fine Monday morning that it would be great incorrectly-spelt crack to just go and offend a bunch of transgender people with an advert, presumably largely for shíts-'n'-giggles. :pac:

Taco Chips

Wibbs wrote: »

Rolleyes indeed. The second you read "cisgender" brace yourself in the near surety that what follows is going to be fun.

So I used an expression that makes you uncomfortable and challenges your attitude, does that detract from any of my points? Or is it a convenient tool for you to hold up as an example of "the PC brigade". Just because you mightn't understand gender issues doesn't mean they don't exist, that they're not important or that they don't apply here.

Oh hang on… was I asleep when you put those words in my mouth? Funny how I said exactly nothing of the sort. Standard operational procedure in such debates mind you. A twist on the assume lowest motive in your opponent and run with that. More subtle than shouting [insert group here]phobic or ist, but not by much.

That was the tone and implication of your post that I was replying to. You were using an often seen meme about "arbiters of offence" implying that people didn't have the right to feel offended because you think theres too much of it going around. You then used an anecdote about "my gay friends in the real world" (hmm that always seems to be a popular one to use when cornered) as an attempt to invalidate my other point. Well the bottom line is your comparison is rubbish and has no basis in fact. In fact your posts remind me of some of the No campaigners who were complaining about being discriminated against because people were trying to ignore them and didn't agree with their views. It's the same argument tactics.

Links234

People getting offended can be annoying, but people getting outraged over people getting offended are so much more obnoxious.

zeffabelli

Taco Chips wrote: »

So I used an expression that makes you uncomfortable and challenges your attitude, does that detract from any of my points? Or is it a convenient tool for you to hold up as an example of "the PC brigade". Just because you mightn't understand gender issues doesn't mean they don't exist, that they're not important or that they don't apply here.



That was the tone and implication of your post that I was replying to. You were using an often seen meme about "arbiters of offence" implying that people didn't have the right to feel offended because you think theres too much of it going around. You then used an anecdote about "my gay friends in the real world" (hmm that always seems to be a popular one to use when cornered) as an attempt to invalidate my other point. Well the bottom line is your comparison is rubbish and has no basis in fact. In fact your posts remind me of some of the No campaigners who were complaining about being discriminated against because people were trying to ignore them and didn't agree with their views. It's the same argument tactics.

One may have a right to be offended but no one owes you taking that offense seriously.

One may have the right to apply meaning in whatever ways suit their agenda, but then they also have a responsibility to understand how meaning works.

One may have the right to reserve your seat at the victims table, but ghey don't have the right to cry shrinking violet every time someone else is offended by whatever deviancy they practise.

Celebrate diversity. If one wants to be accepted for their otherness then one must reciprocate.

wp_rathead

Links234 wrote: »

People getting offended can be annoying, but people getting outraged over people getting offended are so much more obnoxious.

It's the Yin Yang of the Internet :pac:

K4t

Wibbs wrote: »

That's the problem and my point. It is more and more the case that a few loud voices online can force companies and people to back down because they well know and have enough previous examples of the out of proportion shítstorm this small number of noticeboxes can cause for them. So it's simply easier to say "oh here we go again. Just pull the ad, it's not worth the bloody grief from these eejits".

But that's my point - those few loud voices didn't force Three to back down - Three decided it was in their own best interest to pull the ad, just as they believed it was in their own best interest to originally run the ad. You seem to desire a situation whereby companies can run any ad they want safe in the knowledge that it will not be questioned or criticised, whether by me, you, or a few loud voices. That is crazy thinking.

I think we're both getting away from the simple fact that it was ultimately a bad ad, piss poor to be blunt. That is the truly offensive part.

Merces

Wibbs wrote: »

The rationale involved stemmed from a minute number of complaints by a minute number of people which forced them to remove the ads. These tiny loud offence junkies are wielding power way above their number and this is increasing and is well dodgy. Look at the various "scandals" over the last couple of years. The tee shirt astronomer dude. All hell and feelz broke lose from the same tiny minority kicked off by a hack in the US and it overshadowed the fantastic science(and the women who were part of it). The university don more recently hounded out of his job by yet another hack who was extremely economical with the reporting of the incident(and her qualifications). These muppets now have the power to kill careers and ruin people's lives on a whim of their ivory tower offence mongering. That crap needs to be questioned and questioned hard every single time. Doesn't always mean the offence mongers don't have a point, but wider society must scrutinise each case and if found wanting call it for the empty trouble making bullshít it is.

The thing is they were not forced to remove it- they choose to remove it as it was in their best interests. I agree the t- shirt thing was over the top however the context here is that transsexuals are at the bottom of the social ladder and every negative public portrayal makes our lives even harder. I'm a liberal but I'm not an uber SJW type. I'm not going to lie that I am happy Three decided to pull that ad. Everytime I saw it on t.v I cringed and thought to myself 'Great my family will see this crap and they will be even more ashamed of me due to these awful societal portrays'.
Honestly, if you walked a mile in my shoes you'd feel the same.

Carlos Orange

Taco Chips wrote: »

So I used an expression that makes you uncomfortable and challenges your attitude

No you just dismissed someones perspective based strictly on your perception of their race , sexual orientation and gender. Not really the same thing.

Discodog

One thing for sure our advertising standards watchdog won't do anything. Three claimed that they were the only network offering free calls & texts for €20. Tesco offer the same for only €15. The advertising standards crowd ruled that Three weren't in breach because they told the truth even though there ads implied that they were the cheapest.

K4t

zeffabelli wrote: »

One may have a right to be offended but no one owes you taking that offense seriously.

Three obviously feel they do.

conorhal

wp_rathead wrote: »

Taco I appreciate your post, if the add WAS making fun/mocking the Transgender community I'd be the first to condemn it
But the add wasn't mocking anyone Trans
Some people interpreted it wrong which is unfortunate but it's not an offensive add

I don't think you understand, wether the ad was offensive or not doesn't really matter, in our modern culture of 'feels' the only thing that matters is that sombody felt offended.

Taco Chips

zeffabelli wrote: »

One may have a right to be offended but no one owes you taking that offense seriously.

One may have the right to apply meaning in whatever ways suit their agenda, but then they also have a responsibility to understand how meaning works.

One may have the right to reserve your seat at the victims table, but ghey don't have the right to cry shrinking violet every time someone else is offended by whatever deviancy they practise.

Celebrate diversity. If one wants to be accepted for their otherness then one must reciprocate.

So now you're essentially just rephrasing a point I said earlier and trying to hammer it in here against my argument?

Three obviously took the offence seriously. They pulled the ad and apologised. They acknowledged it was wrong.

"Reserve your seat at the victim's table" What is that supposed to mean? I find your post baffling. There's no overarching point or construction. Just some rabble about people taking offence.

Then I read this line "whatever deviancy they practise" and it became clear. Indeed. Now I know why they were so incoherent.

zeffabelli

Taco Chips wrote: »

So now you're essentially just rephrasing a point I said earlier and trying to hammer it in here against my argument?

Three obviously took the offence seriously. They pulled the ad and apologised. They acknowledged it was wrong.

"Reserve your seat at the victim's table" What is that supposed to mean? I find your post baffling. There's no overarching point or construction. Just some rabble about people taking offence.

Then I read this line "whatever deviancy they practise" and it became clear. Indeed. Now I know why they were so incoherent.

Did they take the offense seriously or did they fall for social blackmail? My guess is the latter.

And the people who made a stink about this made themselves look stupid and lose credibility.