Muslims Like Us

[Gerrydelasel]

Pretty much everything is offensive to somebody, somewhere. If you shut things down because a few people claim offense there will be nothing left! The threshold for censorship needs to be much higher than was demonstrated in this case.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

And you just had to agree with those who thought it offensive, didn't you, otherwise you'd be defending the aforementioned t shirt.. Admit it Nosey, that t shirt gets right up your nose.

Maybe Noseall genuinely does not have a personal opinion about the shirt, but maybe he is able to see others' point of view, which your are clearly unable to do.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

You surely can't argue that there is a lot more treading on eggshells these days about racism and what is PC, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but at the same time folk are so quick to be offended. It seems a lot of common sense has gone out the window.

If I am offended, it is my right to express that opinion. Ian Lucraft had that right, and exercised it. he has been demonised for it (by the populist right on other websites), despite his opinion being shared by many others.
Primark had the right to ignore his opinion, or act on it. Maybe, they took the decision they did because they realised his comments were reasonable and justifiable.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

What is a 'toxic product'? Does anyone really believe that a TV corporation with a public image to maintain would approve the design of a T-shirt representing one of its most popular shows, if it was racist? Would stores across America stock it if it was racist? Why did Primark stock it in the first place unless they too considered it not racist? Can something be 'accidentally' racist? Why is it only considered racist here and not in its home country -surely racism is universal?

Racism is not universal, it is contextual.
Again Trevor Phillips: one person addressing another as, "you old queen" is not necessarily homophobic. But it could be. It is contextually, possibly homophobic, but not universally so.

With the shirt in question, it was NOT offensive in the context of a TV programme. Outside of that specific context, it was considered offensive.
Other shirts had the picture of the main character, or the name of the TV programme or other ways of making the context obvious. The shirt in question had no such identifying ways of making it contextual with the TV programme.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

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

I wouldn't ban you wannabenormal,

Empty threats then?
Hopefully typical of the populists.

If you consider your obscene, incestuous comments to be superior...................

 

[Gerrydelasel]

it was NOT offensive in the context of a TV programme. Outside of that specific context, it was considered offensive.

By one man. Even among people who weren't aware of the TV conext (me included) it still does not appear racist. I suspect you have to be above a certain age to see a connection to the N-word.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

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.

Or alternatively when you start labeling others as PC Brigade, perpetually offended, libertards, lefties, etc, you are trying to stifle debate.

If you have an opinion about Justin Bieber, you are entitled to voice your opinion to whoever you think matters. It is then up to those recipients of your opinion to act, or not as they see fit.

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.

Alternatively, which you so readily preemptively dismiss, perhaps the others were simply not aware of the shirt. Only when they became aware of it, and were asked their opinion, did they agree with Ian.

I'm all for debate.

By your resorting to categorising others as libertards, lefties, PC Brigade, perpetually offended, etc, your actions belie your words. You appear to be trying to stifle debate.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Pretty much everything is offensive to somebody, somewhere. If you shut things down because a few people claim offense there will be nothing left! The threshold for censorship needs to be much higher than was demonstrated in this case.

I think you are venturing into absurdity now, threatening that if we recognise some things as offensive, then everything must be offensive.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

By one man. Even among people who weren't aware of the TV conext (me included) it still does not appear racist. I suspect you have to be above a certain age to see a connection to the N-word.

Nuff said?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Or alternatively when you start labeling others as PC Brigade, perpetually offended, libertards, lefties, etc, you are trying to stifle debate.

But they are not here to be debated so there is no harm in labelling them. You are here.

Only when they became aware of it, and were asked their opinion, did they agree with Ian.

And as the polls show, they were still in the tiny minority. So what is your point? That the opinion of a tiny minority should dictate the policy of the majority?

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

And as the polls show, they were still in the tiny minority. So what is your point? That the opinion of a tiny minority should dictate the policy of the majority?

It usually is the minority who are discriminated against. Did you not realise that?
It is the responsibility of the majority to hear the opinion of the minority and include them, not to ignore them because they are the minority!

 

[Gerrydelasel]

It is the responsibility of the majority to hear the opinion of the minority and include them, not to ignore them because they are the minority!

Quite right, but in this case Primark acted after one complaint, and it wasn't even from the supposedly opressed minority. Ian has no idea whether a black person "would know just where I stood." He is putting words into the mouths of others.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Quite right, but in this case Primark acted after one complaint,

Perhaps, just perhaps, they realised it was the start of potentially many complaints, so they acted swiftly to restrict those potential many complaints.

Perhaps he thought, "This has connotations of historical racially aggravated violence in US. We ought to be embarrassed by this, not remind that minority of the violence."
Perhaps Ian thought ahead, and thought, "I would not want anyone to be offended by being confronted with potentially racist, violent imagery."
Perhaps he thought, "Reminding that minority of that violence has similar connotations as the recent upsurge in racially motivated hate-crime. It is currently unhelpful"
He was entitled to his opinion, He was entitled to express that opinion. Primark are entitled to make product/marketing decisions as they see fit. Others are entitled to agree or disagree.
However much you disagree with it. You are entitled to your disagreement.
Resorting to stigmatising, name calling and categorising others stifles the debate, not enriching it.

 

[Ihavenojob]

If you consider your obscene, incestuous comments to be superior...................

I'd consider almost anything to be superior to you.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

I'd consider almost anything to be superior to you.

If that includes making obscene incestuous comments, then your opinion is not worth considering and you are welcome to it.