I think what rankles is that the t-shirt was accused of having an agenda

[jpgray]

(Yeah yeah yeah, another t-shirt thread. Boo hoo, break out your damn rolling eye smiley, whatever will get you through the night--I want to have my say on this properly. I did a crap job explaining my view on this last night.)

To me it was just a dumb t-shirt that exploits gender antagonism to make money. This stuff happens all the time and both genders switch off being the target because both genders buy things and enjoy the tasteless humor. As I understand it, the original manifestation of the "ribcage" joke went like this:

"The quickest way to a man's heart isn't through his stomach, but through his ribcage/chest."

Now, the shirt has switched it to women, but it doesn't even really make sense. What made the joke in the first place is the comedic turn on an old saying: "the way to a man's heart is through his stomach." As far as I know, there doesn't exist a similar anatomical saying for women. Now the joke as it relates to men was used by Roseanne in her act, and I don't find it offensive as a man. I certainly don't believe that she was advocating violence toward men or trying to advance some misandrist agenda. Can some of you who were so offended by the female equivalent of this explain what is it about this shirt that advocates violence against women? And was Roseanne advocating violence against men, or is it different?

There's another old joke that works for both sexes. I'll give you the male attacking version:

Comic: Hey men, don't you think women are fucking idiots?

(men in the audience cheer)

Comic: That's funny, because a lot of the time we're fucking you guys.

Funny. Men and women stick together on these issues--there will be a few guys and gals who will try their hardest to feel offended on behalf of the opposite sex, but for the most part they will only work to show their displeasure when their own gender is the target. I don't think anyone argues that women are treated equally to men in our society, or that DU should keep those tasteless advertisers on, but I think what really rankles is the idea that this t-shirt somehow represents a malevolent purposed agenda when actually it's just an exploitation of stereotypes in the pursuit of cash. The t-shirt could be worn by a dedicated misogynist who likes stabbing women, or it could be worn by a guy who thinks tasteless humor based on stereotypes is funny. The Roseanne joke could be enjoyed by a woman who enjoys tasteless humor based on stereotypes, or Lorena Bobbit. In other words there's a world of difference in racism between a black comic making fun of white people being unable to dance and the KKK, for example, even if both use racial stereotypes.

Or take a recent Comcast commercial about cable, for example, that shows a woman enjoying her new tv programming. A voice-over comes on: "it may make you consider upgrading other things in your life"--cut to a homely guy looking up sheepishly, and then cut to him outside the patio door in the rain as the woman watches TV. Funny? Would it still be funny if the genders were reversed and a man decided to "upgrade" his homely girlfriend by leaving her out in the rain? Is one advancing an agenda of sexism and one not? This stuff will occur as a symptom so long as there is gender antagonism, but I can't take anyone seriously who says that these shirts would be pushed as part of some nasty agenda even if there were no market for them. And they certainly don't create a market for themselves. They are piggy-backing on stereotypical views and gender antagonism, not creating them. That's what I had a problem with when I saw the original threads on this. Not that people found the shirts offensive (some of them are) or that they were removed from DU, but that the shirts were somehow the problem, and not the thoughts and ideas that make them marketable.

[hickman1937]

1. Looks like I missed a doozy of a flame war.

References to it all over here today.

[VelmaD]

2. Not the t-shirt(s) that had an agenda...

the company producing them. The t-shirt just helped further that agenda.

There is no defense for "If I wanted to hear what you have to say, I'd take my cock out of your mouth".

And put it all in context. Things have been really tense around here since the announcement that O'Connor is retiring from the supreme court. Hell, really since just after the 2004 election. A lot of women (and men) are upset over the posts that seem to advocate throwing women's rights overboard. So now was NOT a good time for this whole fiasco.

[jpgray]

3. I guess I see the producers as just looking to make money

If there was some other stereotype or misogynist viewpoint that would sell shirts, they'd put that up instead. They aren't trying to create a market for gender antagonism, but responding to one. That's a fine line maybe, but I think these t-shirts don't represent an ideology like, say, a "white power" shirt sold by Neo-Nazi groups. In one case the intent is more to make money than to harm a group of people, and in the other the case it's clear the intent is to harm a group of people. Does that make any sense?

:dunce:

[VelmaD]

5. I just wanta make sure I have this clear...

you think that racism is an ideology but sexism is not?

And does it really matter what the intent of the sellers is (though I would argue they are both trying to make money AND further an anti-woman ideology)? The result is the same...furthering the continued easy acceptance of sexism in our society.

[jpgray]

6. Not at all

Replace my example of racists with sexists, if you like--it comes to the same thing. I'm just trying to say I think there's a difference in malevolence between a group that is actively trying to create and advance stereotypes and a group that uses an existing culture of stereotypes to make a buck. The former is doing active evil to our society whereas the latter is just a reflection of it.

[VelmaD]

7. How do we know the actual intent...

of the people behind the site with the t-shirts in question? I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given not just the sexist t-shirts but the ones related to Gitmo.

Making a buck off of evil is still evil.

[Zenlitened]

11. "Making a buck off of evil is still evil"

Seems like a pretty straighforward concept, doesn't it?

All this splitting hairs, parsing intent, etc. makes no sense to me either.

:hi:

[jpgray]

12. I guess I don't go in for moral absolutism

Club Gitmo is another good example. That's another horrible, tasteless t-shirt, but are the t-shirt manufacturers as bad as the Bush administration officials who sanction a policy of torture, or the soldiers that carry out the abuses? Your argument would set them on an equal footing of evil.

[VelmaD]

16. Then would it be ok...

for those Club Gitmo shirts to be advertised on DU?

I don't think anyone here would find that acceptable.

And no, the sellers are not AS evil as the bush junta...but that doesn't mean they aren't evil. Profiting off the suffering of your fellow human beings is morally reprehensible.

[jpgray]

25. I'm not arguing that DU should keep the ad

I just had a problem with some of the arguments made about the shirts, and that's what I tried to address in the OP.

[Lars39]

19. Gitmo t shirts *further* the torture agenda.

Any manufacturer that makes 'em is soulless.

[Zenlitened]

20. Sexist tee-shirts *further* the sexist agenda.

Any manufacturer that makes them is not progressive.

Howzzat? :shrug:

[leftofthedial]

56. what if the company made a line of sexually suggestive T-shirts

including one that said: "The fastest way to a man's heart is through the ribcage."

AND

one that said: "The fastest way to a woman's heart is through the ribcage."?

If the company was just in the business of selling bad-taste T-shirts for all occasions?

Is bad taste, without an agenda, sufficient grounds to call for banning an ad (or a thread or a post or a graphic or whatever)?

[Zenlitened]

59. That's kind of a strawman, isn't it?

Bad taste versus sexism? :shrug:

[leftofthedial]

60. I'm just asking

I'm not replacing.

the t-shirts in question were clearly sexist. no dispute here.

[Zenlitened]

61. Well, let's save the 'bad taste' discussion for another time, then.

[leftofthedial]

128. not if the purported standard for removal is offensiveness

plus, my example is still sexism, or does the sexism vanish merely because the give men's ribcages equal time?

[Zenlitened]

138. The "we offend everyone equally" defense? Nope, that's always seemed...

... pretty lame to me. If the image or text is sexually violent, or seen as such by the DU community, I would expect the DU administrators to step in and evaluate whether they want something like that on their site.

Are you looking for a blanket rule on what's offensive and what is not? I don't think you'll find one. That's often something that's decided on a case-by-case basis... as the DU administrators have done.

[Zenlitened]

24. It sounds like you're saying sexism is not 'as bad as' torture.

I'd argue that it is. It may not injure or kill directly, but because of its prevalence -- in scope and duration -- it does a huge amount of harm. It doesn't require 'moral absolutism' to recognize that.

[jpgray]

27. Could you tell me what I posted that gave you that idea? (nt)

[Zenlitened]

28. It was your previous post, where you said...

"Your argument would set them on an equal footing of evil."

[jpgray]

30. That compared the Club Gitmo shirts and the actual torture policy

Those two things are what I argued were not on an equal footing of evil. I have no desire to engage in a "What's worse--torture or sexism?" argument. :)

[Zenlitened]

33. Ah, I see. My bad.

[asthmaticeog]

8. You might not want to bother with this, jpgray.

To some people, nuances don't exist, or are swallowed up in the noise of "I don't like it and that's that."

[redqueen]

80. And *some* people clearly are interested in communcation

and exchange of ideas... reaching understanding, if not agreement.

Why are you trying to shut that down?

[asthmaticeog]

85. I'm not trying to shut anything down.

I'm trying to convey to a friend that he's arguing with a brick wall, who in the past has TWICE strung me along in prolonged arguments only to STATE at the end that she's incapable of changing her mind (paraphrasing her words, I'm not going to search the archives for the quotes) on certain issues. Which is deceitful, rude, and contains something of the solipsistic. And which itself betrays a DISinterest in communication.

[redqueen]

91. Oh...

I misunderstood... I thought it was more about the general discussion than the interaction with a particular poster... sorry.

[asthmaticeog]

125. Actually, re-reading my post,

I can totally see how someone could reach that conclusion.

[smirkymonkey]

98. Are you really that clueless or are you just stirring up shit?

Because if you can't see the parallels and the fallout from this type of hate propaganda (although I think you can, and just won't acknowledge it due to some kind of male superiority trip) then I really don't know what you are doing on a democratic board.

[leftofthedial]

50. the SAME damned joke

started as a joke against men (with zero discernible whining and hyped up outrage over sexism).

now it has been twisted by someone to aim at women.

It's a frigging joke and one that has skewered BOTH parties in the gender war.

White power has no opposite and equal reaction.

But still, I think the problem is that some people are too easily offended and far too ready to demand the removal of whatever they find offensive, instead of engagin n constructive debate about it.

[skygazer]

143. Men do not suffer violence at the hands of women the way women do

at the hands of men. Which makes the "joke" more offensive when it is against women, whether you like that or not.

Every minute of every day more than one woman is reported raped in this country.
(November 1993 National Victim Center Statistics)

At least 20% of adult women have been sexually assaulted in some form during their lifetime 61% of victims are under the age of 18. (AMA 1995)

The American Medical Association estimates that over 4 million women are victims of severe assaults by boyfriends and husbands each year. About 1 in 4 women is likely to be abused by a partner in her lifetime. (Sara Glazer, "Violence Against Women," CQ Researcher, Congressional Quarterly Inc., Vol. 3, No. 8, Feb. 1993, p.171.)

Females are victims of family violence at a rate at least 3 times that of males. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Highlights from 20 years of Surveying Crime Victims (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1993, p25.)

The victim in domestic violence is female in 85% of all cases reported. She is white in 64% of domestic violence cases. The average age of the offender is 31 years.(Uniform Crime Reports as cited by M.C. Moewe, "The Hidden Violence: For Richeer and For Poorer," Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Apr. 5, 1992)

Those statistics come from just a quick Google search for assault and domestic violence statistics. What sort of "constructive debate" would you like? This is nothing new - women have been victims of violence for centuries. By perpetuating the attitudes and stereotypes that condone violence against women, we do nothing to fix the problem.

You may look at it as a joke. But within that joke lies a deeply rooted attitude that says violence against women is okay because they're "only" women. I object to that and I will object loudly every time I see something that conveys that attitude.

What sort of "constructive debate" do you want then? You want us to agree that this is merely a joke and that thinking people don't see it as an attack on women? When attacks on women are not so common as to happen every frigging minute - literally - then I will consider looking at it as a joke. But until then, I see nothing funny about it.

[Zenlitened]

18. I think that's too fine a line, honestly.

Whether they are creating or reflecting, they are still perpetuating, IMO.

And the whole point of the objection to this advertiser, as I see it, was that a progressive website like DU shouldn't be playing a role in perpetuating gender stereotypes by running such ads.

[jpgray]

23. I had no problem with the ad being removed

I did have a problem with the t-shirt seller being compared to the KKK, etc. To me those are two entirely different things--you have your symptoms of bigotry and your causes, and I don't like to confuse the two.

[Zenlitened]

26. Again, symptoms and causes can be hard to distinguish.

The issue is perpetuation.

[On the Road]

4. That Second T-Shirt You Mention

is much worse than the first IMO.

[leftofthedial]

44. I think the compny makes all sorts of T-shirts

not just sexist ones

I'm not so sure their "political agenda" is obvious.

[VelmaD]

46. Well, I think given the sexist ones plus...

the gitmo ones it's pretty clear they aren't furthering a progressive agenda.

[leftofthedial]

54. I absolutely agree

I'm glad DU has advertising standards

[alarimer]

118. They are disgusting

And some people are accusing the objectors as being overly PC. This is what I have a problem with. why is it so hard for some to understand that those slogans are worse than just a un-PC joke. They are extremely demeaning. Apparently it is still okay in some quarters to treat women (I guess the object of the t-shirt slogan you cited was supposed to be a woman but it is demeaning no matter what) as sex objects or as is they are only valued for thier bodies.

[StopTheMorans]

9. excellent post

:thumbsup: it is often very hard for many people around here (who are looking for ANY reason to be offended) to see that maybe, JUST MAYBE, an event can occur somewhat in isolation (and can thus be treated that way), and not as part of a greater agenda dedicated to a malicious cause. shall I don my flamesuit now, or shall I wait? either way, i'll be back in an hour, flame on you crazy diamonds...

[Pithlet]

13. It's hard for some people

to see that maybe others look at things differently, and have differnet senesiblities. And that sometiems you're going to see people geting upset at things that might not matter to you. And that it doesn't mean they're part of some grand conspiracy to stifle everyone else's freedom of expression.

Guess what? People get offended. Get over it. I'm starting to wish people who hate that would go to the websites that don't care about anything, there are no alerts, posts don't get deleted and no one has the guts to stand up for what they believe. There are plenty of them.

The day the admins feel that us wanting to be offended types are going too far, I'm sure they'll remove alerts and will stop deleting threads. Until they do, that's how stuff is done around here. And people here should either suck it up or go somewhere else.

[StopTheMorans]

15. a look in the mirror might do some well n/t

[Pithlet]

17. That made no sense.

I'm not the one whining and crying that people were upset by the ads and admin removed them.

[StopTheMorans]

57. you were one of the ones crying about that post though, hence the

"look in the mirror" reference. shall i draw you a picture :shrug:

[Pithlet]

58. I have no problem with this board, the ads being removed

or the fact that people here express being offended and got the ads removed, or that admins removed them.

I'm not crying at the post. I'm telling the poster and anyone else that they don't get to dictate what I am and am not offended by, or how I chose to express it.

[dolo amber]

10. "rankles" is a funny word

You funny guy. LOL!!!11 :D

[jpgray]

14. Yeah, wouldn't I be great at a party

"blah blah blah, gender antagonism, blah blah blah, moral absolutism"

:beer:

[asthmaticeog]

22. That sounds just about like most of the parties I end up attending.

Shit, that's actually kinda sad. :cry:

[Zuni]

29. kankles is funny too

you know, big swollen ankles :D

[GOPisEvil]

21. It's not about the damned t-shirts themselves.

Whoever makes them is free to do so, and whoever buys them is free to do so. Knock yourselves out.

The argument was about whether or not this site, which professes to be a progressive site, should accept advertising from a company that markets a product that a large number of people here think is offensive.

[sniffa]

32. i dunno senor eviL

it may have started out that way, but it sure seemed to turn into guys suck, you suck, guys suck, and you're one of the suckers.

now, why did i step into this thread...

[GOPisEvil]

35. Well, some people were told they were over-reacting and that

the shirts were even funny. The bottom line is that you can't dictate for someone else what they find offensive.

Certain people felt minimized by that, hence the bad feelings.

[sniffa]

38. granted

i didn't watch this deveLop, and onLy caught the taiL end of it.

whether certain DUers deserved it or not, aLL i caught was the piLing on.

[GOPisEvil]

40. Perspective is everything, and I was just trying to get people

to see that the offense taken was justified. After all if the only time we cared was when our own ox was being gored, and we didn't give a crap at any other time, that wouldn't make us very progressive.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. Funny, I don't think anyone said that to GOPisEvil and he's posted on many

of the threads. We women are bright enough to realize that not all guys suck. Some of you actually bite :D

[Misunderestimator]

108. What? E tu, sniffa?

[bettyellen]

124. because..... never mind

:loveya:

[noamnety]

31. Potential reactions to sexism/racism/torture:

1. Complete apathy
2. Acceptance
3. Refusal to accept it

Some people think sexism, racism, and torture are completely acceptable, so long as nobody is physically injured.

Others disagree.


We all have to decide for ourselves which category we want to be in. I know which one I'm in.

[jpgray]

34. Here's the problem with that attitude, in my view

Take a black comic who makes jokes about white people being unable to dance, and a white supremacist lynch mob who kills a black man because they believe he is a lesser being and a social danger to their community due to his skin color. Both are acts caused by racial stereotypes, but one I would tolerate and the other I would not. By your argument, the white people dancing jokes are just as unacceptable as the lynching. That's silly to me--there are shades of grey even when it comes to racist stereotypes. Some instances are more dangerous than others.

[sniffa]

36. but, white jokes are funny

and besides, they deserve it.

[leftofthedial]

64. LOL

I'm white

I can't dance

I can't jump

I may as well face it. I'm just a joke.

[noamnety]

37. Your statement is incorrect.

By your argument, the white people dancing jokes are just as unacceptable as the lynching

I have not argued they are equally unacceptable, have I?

Try again.

[Pithlet]

39. You sure didn't argue that

What you said was clear to me. Apparently no one is ever allowed to be offended by anything ever. This is how I see it. Some women made the egregious mistake of speaking out against ads for sexist t-shirts on DU. Speaking out against sexism gets a person criticized. Every. Single. Time. How dare a woman feel offense and speak out about it. That is really what this is all about, and those who are sputtering all over themselves denying it and trying to turn it into a free speech issue don't want to/refuse to see it.

[sniffa]

41. oh man

:popcorn:

[leftofthedial]

67. IMHO you ARE allowed, even encouraged, to be offended wnenever you are

What I have questioned is:

1. Whether your offense, on its own, is sufficent cause to demand that the offensive item be removed for everyone.

2. Whether the instinct to immediately translate offense into a call to ban is a good one or not.

[Pithlet]

72. And that question was answered.

There is nothing wrong with refusing to associate with any website or any other entity that associates and expresses ideas one doesn't agree with. THAT IS NOT BANNING FOR EVERYONE ELSE. I don't mean to shout, but I just don't understand why that won't get through. Skinner did not have to remove those ads. But he saw the requests, saw nothing unreasonable about it, and removed them. End of story.

Those who loved the ads and decide they can't live without them can also voice their concerns to skinner and ask that he reinstate them, can they not? I'd have no problem with that, even if I would disagree that they be there,and if they tell me I'm overreacting I'll tell them to stuff it. See? You get the whole free flowing of ideas. No stiffling going on.

[Lars39]

74. Would it help to know that he admitted on the other thread

that he hadn't seen the "friggen ad"?
Makes things a little clearer for me.

[Pithlet]

78. It just makes me even more puzzled.

I can't imagine getting upset over people being offended and outraged at material I hadn't even seen!

No, wait, I take that back. The fact that the material wasn't even witnessed makes me clarifies for me what *probably* happened. Poster saw women getting offended by sexist material and immediately reacted the way a a lot of people do, which is to declare "Overreaction! Stifling of Free Speech!" Classic responses. The actual material in question is irrelevant. We easily offended women just like to get our panties in a wad and ruin it for everyone else. We suck. And, we can't judge for ourselves what we are and aren't willing to put up with. That ruins the fun!

I'm just so disgusted. Not surprised, because this happens every single time sexist stuff happens and gets called on. It's typical.

[redqueen]

82. You just said it all so very well.

*sigh*

[leftofthedial]

129. you've invented a nice imaginary scenario

that reinforces your predisposition.

[leftofthedial]

127. I am GLAD the ads are gone

but my question was NOT answered.

[jpgray]

43. Well let's see. You argued that there are only three exclusive responses

"We all have to decide for ourselves which category we want to be in," correct? If I understand you, I totally disagree with that system because some sorts of racial stereotypes I have apathy towards (white people can't dance) whereas other sorts (black people are lesser beings and depraved criminals) I refuse to tolerate. I can't slot into one exclusive category that will dictate my response to all racial stereotypes.

[noamnety]

89. Do you tolerate

telling people to shut up while they force their cock in your mouth?

do you tolerate people saying they wished they were at Abu Ghraib raping prisoners?

That's what this debate is about, not dancing.

[jpgray]

102. I've never said I advocate these t-shirts

My problem with your post is that it assumes all racism/sexism should elicit stout resistance. I just disagree--I would be embarrassed if people took to the streets over the Comcast ad I mentioned in the OP, for example. Yes it's sexist and exploits gender antagonism, but it does almost no damage compared to other examples of sexism and the effort would be better spent elsewhere. That I should be apathetic towards that Comcast ad doesn't strike me as morally wrong. Some racism also warrants apathy, in my view--the "white people can't dance" jokes are a good example of a case where I can't get worked up over a racial stereotype.

[Terran]

53. Oh please.

Your post clearly implied that that would be your argument.

[noamnety]

71. This is an incorrect conclusion

based on poor logic.

There are degrees of damage.

Leaking top secret information does exceptionally grave damage to our national security.
Leaking secret information does serious damage to our national security.
Leaking confidential information damages our national security.

If you oppose leaking information, that in no way implies that they all do the same level of damage.

Likewise, sexism, racism, and torture damage our society.

If you oppose sexism, racism, and torture, this does not imply that demeaning language does the same level of damage as serially murdering people.

[redqueen]

84. No responses yet?

I love going through these threads and seeing which posts get no responses. Very... interesting.

[jpgray]

86. Nope

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=3734553&mesg_id=3735279

[redqueen]

92. I was referring to the post I responded to.

Wherein it is explained that it is not the level of whatever evil that is the issue, merely the objection to the evil.

I see now that you just answered it. :)

[jpgray]

87. Okay, let's take your brand new example and take it apart

Let's take Watergate. Was the leaking of information done by Deep Throat damaging to our national security, or conducive to it? The Iran / Contra scandal was certainly confidential and top secret--did blowing the cover on that damage our national security, or was it conducive to it? You're very general in expounding on absolute moral rules--let's get to specifics.

[noamnety]

94. Nice topic shift

It was a logical proof, refuting a presumption that opposing sexism/racism/torture as a whole logically implies that all examples of sexism/racism/torture do the same amount of damage.

I could phrase it in more abstract terms, if you prefer.

A, B, and C are each less than Zero.
This does not imply that A = B = C.

If you want to discuss ins and outs of Watergate, I would suggest starting a new thread.

[jpgray]

100. This was your topic--I was taking it from the general to the specific

Your argument above was that while there are degrees of damage leaking information can do to national security, they do different degrees of damage. My point is that sometimes in some cases such a leak does no damage. In other words it's very fine to say "I'm opposed to all leaks of confidential information!" but when confronted with some actual examples, it's difficult to hold that moral absolutism. There are some cases where leaks are very important to national security, rather than damaging.

To return to the actual topic, in my view a joke about white people being unable to dance, even though it is certainly a racial stereotype, does negligible damage. The idea that blacks are subhuman or inherently criminals is also a racial stereotype, but this one does serious damage. The former stereotype I feel apathetic toward, and I would consider it a waste of energy to actively oppose. The latter stereotype I refuse to tolerate and I would consider it the best use of energy to actively oppose.

[noamnety]

107. Fair enough

Again, I return to the topic. I wasn't outraged about dancing, I was outraged about:

a) promoting the idea that women are to shut their damned mouths and be passive receptacles for men to rape, and

b) the glorification of raping prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

These are ideas I refuse to tolerate, and I consider it the best use of energy to actively oppose.

Unlike Watergate, which had an upside in that it exposed organized crime, I'm unclear on any upside of advertising those two shirts on this site, and how it would outweigh the downside.

Furthermore, if I do make the occasional racist or sexist remark due to a moment of stupidity, not recognizing my own bias, what have you, and I'm called on it, I don't feel the need to go into defense mode. A simple apology, "I didn't realize how racist that was, gosh I'm sorry, my bad" is more appropriate. I won't claim I'm perfect, we all have biases because of how we were raised, and because of biased language and idioms we're exposed to. But when confronted, I'm not going to blame the person I've offended. I'd be the one at fault. Even if it's something as seemingly benign as a joke about dancing.

[redqueen]

140. FWIW, I agree with you.

I see the same thing you do in those shirts. And I agree also about apologizing when you've offended someone, rather than getting defensive and arguing about how they shouldn't be offended.

[Terran]

110. Perhaps I'm wrong but your post #31 implied that

I have not argued they are equally unacceptable, have I?

You implied such an argument in post #31 when you lumped them together as if they were all equally immoral, and then stated, rather superciliously, that you knew where you stood in relation to them/"it". You made no attempt in that post to distinguish them.


My logic is perfectly good; apparently it was your post that was misleading.

[noamnety]

112. I'll repeat this for your benefit.

A < 0
B < 0
C < 0

does not imply A=B=C.

This is a basic principle of logic. The first does not imply the second. Not even if I don't explicitly state they aren't equivalent, not even if I don't explicitly distinguish between A, B, and C.


Words are not equivalent to murder, we all agree on that, and yet we continue to argue about it. :)

[Terran]

119. Patronization is so lame.

Rely on your logic all you want, but words aren't exact. YOUR words implied an idea that you're running away from now.

[noamnety]

122. My words were exact.

you chose to imagine other meanings, based on faulty logic and what you wanted them to say.

No point in debating a faulty premise.

[Donkeyboy75]

137. There ain't much grey area in

"refusal to accept it." You yourself said the reactions fall into three potential categories. Are you now saying there are some subcategories that combine two of these three? If so, you're reinforcing the OP's point. If not, your "equally unacceptable" argument holds no water.

[jpgray]

42. mispost

[leftofthedial]

45. I've been running on maximum stress and minimum rest

so I'm not my usual articulate, charming self.

Thanks for saying this well as regards the T-shirt.

I'm still concerned that we, as a community, have forgotten how to "live and let live."

[VelmaD]

49. As long as you understand that "live and let live"...

can be seen as code for "I want to be as offensive as I chose to be without anyone being allowed to call me on it."

[Pithlet]

55. Women offended by sexist jokes

Are exempt from live and let live status. We're supposed to keep quiet.

[leftofthedial]

70. I never said be quiet

I said you should discuss, debate and argue

what I questioned was whether you should immediately start calling for the authorities to ban the offensive item and make rules against it.

[Pithlet]

76. If your idea

of standing up for yourself doesn't extend beyond discussion, that's fine. Good for you. But other people do go a step further. I won't just discuss the issues I have with Wal Mart with them. I'll refuse to step foot in their store until they change their ways. Action. There is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with going a step beyond discussion when you see an injustice and want it acted on.

I would not associate with a message board that placed those ads. You're telling me that I should merely have stated my objection, but then have done nothing else? Or maybe I should have just left instead of letting Skinner know how I felt about them, and then he never would have known that an ad he inadvertently placed on his website drove me away? If I were an admin of a site, I'd WANT my members telling me, and giving me a chance to make it right. If I disagreed and decided action wasn't necessary, I'd be sad to see them go. But I wouldn't suggest they never ask me in the first place. That certaily isn't Live and Let Live, is it?

[leftofthedial]

131. I join you here on the outside of all Wal Marts

:thumbsup:

live and let live means what it says. Live your life and let others live theirs.

If you don't like them, don't associate with them. If you disagree with them, say so all you want, but you have no right to compel them to be quiet. No matter how offensive or disagreeable you find them, you don't have the right to kill them.

[leftofthedial]

62. I disagree with the "without anyone being allowed to call me on it" part

I never said that.

In fact, I have repeatedly advocated discussion, condemnation, argument . . .

What I oppose is the immediate reaction to something offensive being to ban it and/or make rules against it. That inevitably stifles free expression and the exchange of ideas.

Plus, YOUR line for offensiveness with regard to sexism excludes joke T-shirts. Other people, also opposed to sexism, may find that joke T-shirts are stupid, but not offensive enough to ban. This is a pluralistic place. Why should your specific view prevail for all?

[Pithlet]

66. No one wanted to ban it.

This has been told to you over and over and over and over again. This wasn't an attempt to stifle free exchange of ideas. You won't let that go. I don't know why.

[leftofthedial]

132. so it is still on the DU homepage then?

if the companyhad not been duplicitous in placing the ads, they would be there?

No one suggested that the ads should be removed from DU?

Really?

[redqueen]

141. Is this about the ad or not?!

When I read the word "ban" in the midst of a thread which is supposedly not about this ad... I interpret that word to mean that you are referring to it being made unacceptable everywhere, not just this ad, on this website.

[Lars39]

68. Some things are very obviously offensive on first sight,

and those ads were.
But you never saw the ads.
"I never even saw the frigging ad in question."

[leftofthedial]

130. I don't doubt at all that it was offensive

others may have different opinions.

is offensiveness alone sufficient grounds for removal (of ANY speech, not just these ads)?

if so, who are the offensiveness "police"?

[hfojvt]

77. tanj. Red alert. Red alert.

The code has been compromised. The code has been compromised. Switch to code D-Orange Gamma. That's code D-Orange Gamma.

Um, well, calling people out is against the DU rules:

"Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know."

:D

[GOPisEvil]

52. Are you incapable of placing yourself in someone else's shoes?

Seriously. Just because it isn't your ox being gored doesn't mean that someone else's isn't. Next time it could be your ox.

[leftofthedial]

134. I've lived almost my entire life in someone else's shoes

for the hundredth time, I hate the frigging t-shirt slogan. I deplore it. I have zero doubt that it is offensive to women. The slogan is offensive to me.

My ox is and has been gored more than the slow guy at Pamplona.

Is offensiveness sufficient cause fo removal of speech?

No one seems to want to answer the question. It's much more fun to accuse me of things I didn't say and don't believe, I guess.

[redqueen]

142. There is not just one answer to that question.

Is offensiveness sufficient cause fo removal of speech?

Yes, in some cases. Not in others, though.

In the case of this ad? Hell yes.

Any other examples you want to discuss?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

97. So forcing a cock in my mouth to avoid my point is living and letting live

Not by *MY* definition of "live."

[leftofthedial]

133. who forced a cock in your mouth?

I'll kill 'em!

[Wetzelbill]

136. !!!!!!!

[Taverner]

47. Excuse me, but what t shirt are you talking about?

Color me confused :shrug:

[jpgray]

48. Color yourself lucky

:D

[Taverner]

51. Color me frustrated

:grr:

[tjdee]

65. There was a t-shirt company advertising on DU.

They had pic up which said something like "The only bush I'll trust is my own" but switched up to "I have nice boobs"--leading to this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=3729536&mesg_id=3729536

[Taverner]

99. Ahhh read it.

Bad taste, yes. Sexist, perhaps. Worth a flame war, doubtful.

But I think they should keep the ad, but I don't see it paying off for the sponsor.

[neuvocat]

63. You hear about the wallet made out of foreskins?

You rub it three times and it turns into a suitcase.

:evilgrin:

[leftofthedial]

139. Now THAT's offensive!

:thumbsup:

[Misunderestimator]

69. Not enough t-shirt threads today, that's for sure...

Oh, and here ya go:

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:








:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[Blue-Jay]

73. Are *YOU* wearing a t-shirt today?

Can I see it?
:yoiks:

[Misunderestimator]

75. Bwaaahaaaahaaaa!

:rofl:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

79. As much as I respect you, it's as though you REFUSE to get it

So what if it's just an exploitation of stereotypes in pursuit of cash? (which I disagree with) Amos and Andy was a pursuit of stereotypes in pursuit of cash.

HOWEVER, if there were one t-shirt with ONE possibly questionable phrase, I might buy your point.

In fact, there were several and all were actually quite violent toward women:

The quickest way to a woman's heart is through her rib cage (infers violence)

If I wanted to hear what you said I would take my dick out of your mouth BTW...most of the male arguments questioning the upset arounf this actually remind me of this shirt...you fellas really are DYING to minimize this.

Look, JP, I give you the benefit of the doubt as a thinker (or one who thinks) but since last night, you've revamped your arguments from comparing this to the movie Trainspotting wherein the word cunt was used many times and trying to make the point that these shirts warranted artistic license...now it's back to Roseanne's tacky joke directed toward men.

I don't know what Roseanne's intentions were. I don't know what the shirtsellers' intentions are...I DO know that the end result of a shirt that says, "If I wanted to hear what you said, I would take my dick out of your mouth" is to minimize anything I have to say.

You are now doing the same thing. It's damn big of you to use your brain instead of your dick but it's the same goddamn thing. Minimizing my humanity. I'm not terribly fond of that even if done in good humor.

[jpgray]

81. No, I agree it's pretty clear they had no business advertising on DU

My Trainspotting argument made no sense whatsoever, and I'd like to pretend it never existed. :) But the point I was trying to make there was that the vulgarity in Trainspotting was a reflection of society's vulgarity, not an ideological attempt to advance it. I feel the same way about these shirts. That doesn't mean the shirts are harmless and people are silly to be offended, but I do disagree that the shirts were created to harm women--I think it's more likely they were created just to make money. The t-shirt company is reacting to a market for gender antagonism, not creating one. I think one is less evil than the other. It's a fine line, but that's all I'm trying to say, and the implication that such a line doesn't exist is what bothered me last night. I would never try to shut anybody up, but when I disagree with something I'll say my piece.

[redqueen]

88. I think I see what you're saying here.

However, when I go rent a movie like Trainspotting, I don't consider that the same thing as wearing a t-shirt that says some dumb slogan.

Now, that's not to say that I think it's part of an organized agenda... but I recognize that there are many things about our soceity which *do* at least *seem to* do their part to encourage a little bit more acceptance of what I've come to start calling the "rape culture".

The ribcage joke? I can look past that, actually... it's *so* over the top that I can't take it seriously... plus it just seems to be a play on the "quickest way to the heart" jokes that came before it.

The dick in the mouth joke, though... that slogan seems, to me, to positively promote the rape culture. Pictures of women bound... with tape over their mouths... with captions like "just like you want her" or whatever (don't remember if that was in Maxim, or Stuff)... that shit is getting worse, and I do think it's a serious problem that warrants serious discussion.

Do I think it's part of an organized, overt agenda? No. Do I think it's a very serious problem that we need to address as such, and not with a "why can't you just take a joke" attitude? Yes.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

90. The shirts don't harm women and nobody said that..that's more minimizing

The ACTS harm women and a shirt that validates those acts as though those acts are some big fucking joke continues to perpetrate the (as SOteric put it) intolerable.

It's the same reason we pull posts that make a joke out of prison rape on DU. Rape is not funny.

Furthermore, I think the argument that the shirts cater to the market rather than create it is a chicken versus egg argument. To some degree, marketing DOES serve to create conditions...we live in a Big Mac society because the average kid has seen one million commercials by the time they are 20 years old. I really don't wish for people to get these messages drilled into their head over and over...at some point that which is perceived as humorous becomes OK to the perceiver by virtue of the fact that it is humorous....

And I am happy you have withdrawn the Trainspotting argument, but the fact that you withdrew it only serves to further my point...some of you fellas are GRABBING at straws to somehow make this ok when you know it isn't.

[Blue-Jay]

95. Stop saying "you fellas".

:P

For what it's worth, I see the distinction that jp is trying to make, but it's such a minute distinction that I'm having trouble trying to figure out the point in much more discussion.

Those shirts = Not funny.
Glad they're gone from DU.
Not gonna make any dipshit insensitive "lighten up, biatches" shitty condescending remarks.

It seems as though most here are agreeing more than they're disagreeing about the stupid things.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

104. OK..is youse guys acceptable?

As to your points, yes there is more agreement than disagreement..but riddle me this Batman? Why is it some must nuance the fuck out of this subject or seek SOME level of justification when sexism arises?

[Blue-Jay]

105. Your guess is as good as mine.

Too many tiny nuances makes my head hurt.

(and I prefer "hey assholes") :D

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. Which head?

and thanks, asshole ;)

[jpgray]

96. Well, what set me off to begin with was your comparison with the KKK

I think the thread was titled "So the NAACP should have ads from the KKK?" What bugged me about that and got me into the argument was that I don't think a dumb t-shirt company exploiting stereotypes is the same as an organization that openly advocates and creates them. Then I wrote my Trainspotting Treatise, got my ass handed to me, and thought about it some more. You're right that marketing does serve to create conditions, but the Comcast ad I mentioned in my original post isn't aiming to undermine the image of masculinity everywhere--it just wants to sell cable. Even if it perpetuates a stereotype, I can't take it as seriously as a group like the KKK. And again, the shirts aren't okay, but I don't think they're as evil as purposed misogyny. I'd call them symptomatic misogyny. That doesn't mean they aren't a problem, but what I saw as a blurring of that distinction is what got my shorts in a twist.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

103. OK..let me try this again

I think the thread was titled "So the NAACP should have ads from the KKK?" What bugged me about that and got me into the argument was that I don't think a dumb t-shirt company exploiting stereotypes is the same as an organization that openly advocates and creates them.

The KKK did NOT create the stereotypes. They, too, are just another organization catering to a market.

, but the Comcast ad I mentioned in my original post isn't aiming to undermine the image of masculinity everywhere--it just wants to sell cable. Even if it perpetuates a stereotype, I can't take it as seriously as a group like the KKK.

The shirt did not stereotype women. Stereotyping would be "women are ______" The shirt suggested that women existed to have cocks in their mouths and that the best way to their hearts was a blow to the rib cage...SOOOOOO...if the shirt said..."the best way to a black person's heart is through a noose hanging on a tree," would you still think it's just a marketing company out to make a buck?

I'm just trying to get past your nuances to the place where a greater distinction lies.

[jpgray]

109. I'm still failing at explaining what my beef is

I'm at least pretty sure my uneasiness doesn't stem from some "take the abuse and shut up" mentality. :D

The KKK did NOT create the stereotypes. They, too, are just another organization catering to a market.

I'm not quite with you there. The marketability of racism does not dictate the KKK's ideology. The KKK isn't suddenly going to appoint black Grand Wizards or change their raison d'etre from WASP supremacy based on the shifting marketability of racism. This t-shirt company though would not offer a misogynistic shirt if there were no market for it, because they exist to sell t-shirts and make money, not to advance an agenda of anti-woman sentiment.

if the shirt said..."the best way to a black person's heart is through a noose hanging on a tree," would you still think it's just a marketing company out to make a buck?

Such a shirt would be far less socially acceptable than the "ribcage" shirt--no comic would say that onstage. But if such t-shirts were sold, yes I'd still say it's more a symptom of bigotry than a driver of it. I'm not saying these shirts can't drive antagonism (the "if I wanted to hear what you had to say" shirt is a good example), but they feel more like symptoms to me than causes. Again, as Jay said it's a slight distinction but I feel it's an important one.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. *round 3...both parties still standing*

I'm not quite with you there. The marketability of racism does not dictate the KKK's ideology. The KKK isn't suddenly going to appoint black Grand Wizards or change their raison d'etre from WASP supremacy based on the shifting marketability of racism.

They did change their name from the KKK to the Conservative Citizens' Council in order to make racism secondary to conservatism...so, yes, they have made some changes in order to create broad appeal and the CCC even boasts a few black members even though it is still the KKK. I think that negates your post...yes they do indeed market or SELL.


This t-shirt company though would not offer a misogynistic shirt if there were no market for it, because they exist to sell t-shirts and make money, not to advance an agenda of anti-woman sentiment.

Assumes facts not in evidence. They may very well exist for that purpose. Furthermore, there are hundreds of cafepress customers that are indeed marketing a message and have never made a dime.

So, yor arguments are not persuasive that they only exist to sell shirts..and again....I think you're grabbing.

Such a shirt would be far less socially acceptable than the "ribcage" shirt--no comic would say that onstage. But if such t-shirts were sold, yes I'd still say it's more a symptom of bigotry than a driver of it. I'm not saying these shirts can't drive antagonism (the "if I wanted to hear what you had to say" shirt is a good example), but they feel more like symptoms to me than causes. Again, as Jay said it's a slight distinction but I feel it's an important one.

You prefer to deal with symptom and cause and I suggest that you do so in this instance because it supports the sophistry of the moment (but JP..I am not calling you a sophist, OK?). I deal with the whole disease.

Oh...and far less socially acceptable? To whom? I think on that note and with that sentence I can safely declare
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'VE FUCKING GOTCHA!

[jpgray]

114. Not so fast--cut me, Mick.

I'm still doing a crap job, as you're handing me my ass again. Let's see.

They did change their name from the KKK to the Conservative Citizens' Council in order to make racism secondary to conservatism...so, yes, they have made some changes in order to create broad appeal and the CCC even boasts a few black members even though it is still the KKK. I think that negates your post...yes they do indeed market or SELL.

They market or sell their ideology, which remains WASP supremacy whatever haircut they put on it. But there's no evidence in my view that the shirts on that site betray a concerted effort to market and sell an ideology. Like T-shirt Hell, it seems to me that the ideology is to sell shirts, and nearly any message is fine so long as someone buys it. The KKK doesn't go by "any message is fine so long as someone buys it."

It's true that it's possible this t-shirt company exists to advance a secret misogynist agenda, but by that rationale you could argue Chappelle's Show exists to promote a racist agenda. It's possible--Chappelle's Show uses a lot of racial stereotypes in its humor and some of them are pretty ugly, but to me the more likely explanation is that the former exists to sell shirts and the latter exists to make people laugh and get ratings.

You prefer to deal with symptom and cause and I suggest that you do so in this instance because it supports the sophistry of the moment (but JP..I am not calling you a sophist, OK?). I deal with the whole disease.

Without question the whole disease deserves treatment, symptom and cause alike. I just don't want to be told that the sniffles are the cold. You get rid of the cold and the sniffles will dry up. You get rid of this shirt, or even all outer expressions of misogynistic ideas, and misogyny will still be alive and well.

Oh...and far less socially acceptable? To whom? I think on that note and with that sentence I can safely declare I'VE FUCKING GOTCHA!

Well, meaning always comes from two things--perception and intent. You have to have someone who is offended before something can be given that meaning. For example, if some Neo-Nazis paraded through parts of India, the swastikas would be taken as no great shakes because that is an Indo-European symbol for good luck, etc. The intent would be anti-Semitic, but the perception would rob the symbol of its offensive power. I think more people would perceive your "black person" shirt as offensive than the "ribcage" shirt--that's why I said it was less socially acceptable. All I know is a comic would do fine saying one and be hounded from the stage for saying the other.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

120. Again you are grabbing, and that defines your argument

They market or sell their ideology, which remains WASP supremacy whatever haircut they put on it. But there's no evidence in my view that the shirts on that site betray a concerted effort to market and sell an ideology. Like T-shirt Hell, it seems to me that the ideology is to sell shirts, and nearly any message is fine so long as someone buys it. The KKK doesn't go by "any message is fine so long as someone buys it."

You can keep arguing that the ideology is to sell shirts, but more aptly stated, the ideology is to sell shirts no matter the costs almost like the many justifications for the Iraq war.

THE POINT IS THE SHIRTS HARM WHETHER BY THOUGHT OR DEED..unless you truly think thoughts or thoughtlessness are without harm. I don't.

It's true that it's possible this t-shirt company exists to advance a secret misogynist agenda, but by that rationale you could argue Chappelle's Show exists to promote a racist agenda. It's possible--Chappelle's Show uses a lot of racial stereotypes in its humor and some of them are pretty ugly, but to me the more likely explanation is that the former exists to sell shirts and the latter exists to make people laugh and get ratings.

There you go being a cause in search of an analogy again. Do you ever ask yourself why you must do that with this argument? To me, it seems so that you may justify and rectify the unjustifiable and unrectifiable. Hell, you already admitted if the hatred were expressed toward black folks you and the rest of society would reject it but because it is directed toward women, it is not terribly palatable but socially acceptable. BY WHOSE STANDARDS???



Without question the whole disease deserves treatment, symptom and cause alike. I just don't want to be told that the sniffles are the cold. You get rid of the cold and the sniffles will dry up. You get rid of this shirt, or even all outer expressions of misogynistic ideas, and misogyny will still be alive and well.

And I don't wish to be told that if my cold is gone the sniffles are nothing..if you know the pathophysiology of disease then you know the cold could be long gone but the sniffles could end up being a sinus infection.

I do want you to know, you aren't wearing me out, but I won't bend...there's absolutely NO justification for shirts that advocate violence against women. YOu consider them harmless because you are a man and they don't affect you. Perhaps that's all you need to get.



In essence you've just been a verite performance act of white male privilege. You getting to be the judge of who should be offended when.

Sorry..it doesn't work that way...WE"VE COME A LONG WAY BABY ;)


Well, meaning always comes from two things--perception and intent. You have to have someone who is offended before something can be given that meaning. For example, if some Neo-Nazis paraded through parts of India, the swastikas would be taken as no great shakes because that is an Indo-European symbol for good luck, etc. The intent would be anti-Semitic, but the perception would rob the symbol of its offensive power. I think more people would perceive your "black person" shirt as offensive than the "ribcage" shirt--that's why I said it was less socially acceptable. All I know is a comic would do fine saying one and be hounded from the stage for saying the other.

Three words..THIS ISN'T INDIA...look..use that canard all you wish, but in some cultures it is unfathomable for a woman to be introduced to sex by anyone but her father...here...we lock the sick bastard up.

Again, for being such a reasonable male who wishes no ill will toward any woman, you should ask yourself why you desire to pursue and make this argument ok. I suspect it's kind of goes like this: "Look, NSMA< I know there's a line somewhere, but I don't want to believe I ever cross it so I must justify this in the unfortunate event that I cross a line that I personally believe I never cross."

Sorry, JP..the minute you CAN justify any of this...you are crossing that line and all the intellectual banter in the world won't uncross it. But I promise..you easily recognize when someone else crosses the line of what YOU determine to be reasonable.

Regards

[jpgray]

121. I think I lose

There's still something bothering me about this, but I'll be exfluncticated if I can explain what it is exactly. I acknowledge the corn: elad just needs to add a white flag smiley.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

123. I think what's bothering you is any advocacy of censorship

Here's where I will nuance if it makes you feel better.

Review my posts on this subject and the numerous "bitch" threads from a year ago...there is a HUGE distinction between calling for banning thoughts and words and ideas...versus suggesting that progressives SHOULD know better.

Peace


As always..I respect your arguments even if I disagree with them. I'm not even sure we disagree terribly. I know you don't support those thoughts or words or shirts...you just consider them to be more benign than I do since you consider the acts are harmful but the thoughts which may precipitate them are benign.

[noamnety]

113. They are both a symptom and a cause

Society teaches you to be a bigot, you sell/wear the shirt. <-- symptom.

You sell/wear the shirt, as part of society you are teaching others to be a bigot. <-- cause.

[jpgray]

115. On the symptom/cause spectrum, I'd say the shirt's closer to symptom

You could get rid of all the offensive sexist shirts in the world and it wouldn't end sexism. If we could get rid of sexism, however, offensive sexist shirts wouldn't be too popular anymore.

[noamnety]

116. Ding Ding Ding

If we could get rid of sexism

That's exactly what we are trying to do. Some people are offended by those efforts. Are you?

[LincolnMcGrath]

144. Exxxxxxcelent Mr. Smithers! Another Gender War!

:woohoo: :woohoo:

[alarimer]

93. But apparently the advertiser misled the Admins

as to the nature of their product. That in itself is a reason to end their contract. As a progressive web site, DU is entitled to allow whatever ads they see fit and these definitely did not fit with the progressive agenda. It is not censorship for them to pull the ad. And it is not wrong for people to feel offended by those shirts and ask that the ad be pulled. I was offended by the descriptions of the shirts and I would defintely have thought less of the owners/admins of this site if they had kept them simply for the money. There is a greater principle at work here. We are free to judge the owners of the company that makes and sells those shirts as well as those who allow advertising by those companies. We are not being "thin-skinned" by being offended. There is simply no place for those kind of attitudes (expressed by the shirts) at a progressive website. We have progressed a long way, but apparently some people STILL think it is okay tp objectify women and treat them as sex objects. It is NOT okay, not by a long shot.

[Taverner]

101. I dont think objectification is the issue

Otherwise DU would be against anything that objectifies people, which would eliminate capitalism from the site completely.

[alarimer]

117. Well the slogans were demeaning

At least the ones I saw mentioned were. There is no place for that in a civilized society (not that we are there yet exactly). I don't mean to go all PC here but if I had my way no one would use such slogans in reference to anyone. When will we get to the point where that is rejected in popular culture? I'm still waiting and probably will be for a long time. Many have derided the fact that some of us have taken offense at those slogans as being overly PC but I say that any sort of demeaning language is just plain wrong. I think anyone who buys or wears such a shirt has a lot of issues and is clearly someone I would not want to associate with. So does anyone who sells them. It is similar to people who mistreat animals. You know there is something worng with them.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

126. OK..I think I figured it out in a way you and others can hear it

Those shirts are propaganda in the war against equality whether that is the shirt seller's intent or not.

[jpgray]

135. Bingo! I have no problems with that

I suppose intent is just very, very important to me. I'm not sure exactly why. But enough about our differences...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4208930&mesg_id=4209044

:D