Muslims Like Us

[noseall]

That's your view and presumption. Others here were saying it's because it's all got over the top with the PC stuff, that's their view and presumption.
Be interesting to find out how many people actually did complain.

I think my view and presumption is pretty valid in view of the fact the product was pulled.
My personal opinion is that it has only slightly more than tenuous links to racism but you have to scratch through a couple of layers to find it. Offensive - not unless you have a personal grievance.

 

[blightymam]

I think my view and presumption is pretty valid in view of the fact the product was pulled.

But you always do think you're right. Shame you didn't understand what I wrote.

 

[noseall]

Shame you didn't understand what I wrote.

Of course I did. When Primark reinstate the product then the opinions of those that think it was a knee jerk overreaction to PC issues will also have their reasons validated.

 

[noseall]

Primark has an "image" now.

Gosh Judith you are naïve.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Glad to hear it, heterosexual through & through me, & you wont change me with your code words

I just protest about your lame pick up line, boyo is getting boring .

Judging by your recent obscene, incestuous comment about relative humidity, it is obvious where your interests lie.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

To some people, not to all.

Does everyone need to be offended before something can be described as offensive?

 

[Ihavenojob]

Upset you did it wannabenormal ?
I'm offended by you, quite a few others are as well, should we ban you?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

The person who complained may not have know the context of the tee-shirt, but there was nothing whatsoever to suggest it was racist in any way; it was after all, only the beginning of a nursery rhyme that is no longer used with the original racist words,

So if I put a picture of say a burning cross, overlaid with the words eeny, meeny, etc, would you consider it an objection to crosses, coupled with a rhyme to choose which cross to burn next?
Or would you make a racist connection?
I am confident that many would make the connection and find it offensive.
That is what happened in this case. Many people thought it was offensive.

They are entitled to their opinion, as you are entitled to yours.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Upset you did it wannabenormal ?

Have you been smoking some weird **** again?

I'm offended by you, quite a few others are as well, should we ban you?

If it is within your authority to ban me, go right ahead, for what highlighting your obscene, incestuous comments?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

It will all change for the better ounce this brexit caper kicks in

What is your vision of "better"?
We have done this before, so you are just repeating old and unsupportable comments.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

They (or at least liberalistic people like them) perceived the very mention of the word "black" to have racist connotations.

Trevor Phillips's (refer to Gerry's comment) exact point. When someone is "categorised" for having an opinion, it stifles debate. Trevor was referring to the resort of describing someone as racist when immigration is mentioned. Of course it is a common resort, but not applicable until someone makes a racist comment trying to argue against immigration. Like crticising Islam is perfectly acceptable until you start unfairly stigmatising Muslims.
Exactly the same when someone has a political opinion different to yours so you resort to name calling and stigmatising such as libertards, lefties, PC brigade etc. It is the same attempt to stifle genuine debate.

Around the same time Robertsons dropped the Golliwog badge,

Ten years later actually.

as this too was deemed highly offensive to certain people (none of them actually black though)

How do you know this?
Ahh, of course, it is you and your alternative sense of reality.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

They are entitled to their opinion, as you are entitled to yours.

But this isn't about mere opinion, it is about the opinion of a teeny, tiny minority exerting actual, tangible influence over those vast majority who don't share that opinion. Ian Lucraft -a single individual at the time- had an opinion which led to a tangible effect on everybody else, who didn't share that opinion. The shirt was removed. Not because Primark agreed with his opinion (or they wouldn't have stocked it in the first place) but because they were afraid of the tiny minority getting vocal and tarnishing their reputation e.g. through social media.

The perpetually offended are the more vocal, the more demanding, and thanks to viral media and PC culture now enjoy a disproportionate amount of ear-time and wield a disproportionate level of power over the rest of us. There has come a general, ponderous, populist movement against this, but as it is far less vocal it takes place at the anonymous ballot box instead, where no one can Tweet you into submission.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

But this isn't about mere opinion, it is about the opinion of a teeny, tiny minority exerting actual, tangible influence over those vast majority who don't share that opinion. Ian Lucraft -a single individual at the time- had an opinion which led to a tangible effect on everybody else, who didn't share that opinion. The shirt was removed. Not because Primark agreed with his opinion (or they wouldn't have stocked it in the first place) but because they were afraid of the tiny minority getting vocal and tarnishing their reputation through social media. The perpetually offended are the more vocal, the more demanding, and thanks to viral media and PC culture now enjoy a disproportionate amount or ear-time and wield a disproportionate level of power over the rest of us.

In your opinion,how many people need to be offended before something can be deemed offensive?
1, 10, 100, 1000, 1,000,000?
If you offend me, I find you offensive. That is my opinion and I am entitled to it.
Ian Lucraft was entitled to his opinion, he voiced his opinion, lots of people agreed with him, lots of people disagreed with him, Primark agreed and acted, end of.
You can jump to all sorts of assumptions for their motive.
Anyone who disagrees can also voice their opinion, but when it deteriorates into a slanging match, such as describing people as libertards, lefties, PC brigade, perpetually offended, etc, and making other wild allegations and assumptions, the voicing of opinions has gone too far, and those people are trying to stifle debate.

Incidentally, referring to Trevor Phillips again, many of the populist movement that you refer to, resort to horrific insults and threats via social media.
One such perpetrator was interviewed and excused his threats of rape, murder, etc as "trying to promote free speech" and "it is accepted behaviour on social media".
He had served time for his threats via social media.
Sadly, some of the populist movement carry out their threat of murder (Jo Cox).

 

[Ihavenojob]

I wouldn't ban you wannabenormal, I enjoy the feeling of superiority when you post.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

That is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

So you keep saying, but that is irrelevant. I'm offended by Justin Bieber, and I know others who are too, but I don't expect him to be removed from sale to satisfy our marginal opinion. Having an opinion doesn't mean anything. It's when you use an opinion as an excuse to censor others that the debate begins.

Ian Lucraft voiced his opinion, lots of people agreed with him

What people? if you're talking about the newspaper polls then that only happened after the fact. At the time, he was the only person who complained. The thought probably wouldn't even have occured to many of the people in the polls if it hadn't been explained to them first (and we know how reliable polls are...). His objection didn't even make sense, he said it was 'explicitly racist' when it was at best implicit, and he said it was 'subliminal messaging', again contradicting the explicit part. He can't even articulate his point yet he was taken seriously by Primark.

making other wild allegations and assumptions, the voicing of opinions has gone too far, and those people are trying to stifle debate.

I'm all for debate. Here there was none : one complaint = product removed. Afterwards it turned out 90% (depends which paper you read) disagreed with the action taken.