Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
And I would like you to educate yourself as you clearly need to. I also don't response well to straw man arguments.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oh, jeez. "Racist" Walking Dead T-Shirt pulled due to complaints
- Thread starter Father Heathen
- Start date
And I would like you to educate yourself as you clearly need to. I also don't response well to straw man arguments.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Curious George
Veteran Member
Hopefully an 18 year old.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Damn that capitalism, right?
Curious George
Veteran Member
Is this one of those complain about people complaining, or get offended by people getting offended threads?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
When you put it that way, Capitalist gains being the motive for censorship, then yes.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Okay, so I take it that you can't explain where and how the Constitution allows for mob justice and the censoring of free expression.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I am sorry but do you not know what a straw man fallacy is?
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
The store has the right to sell the t-shirt and people have the right to complain. That is how free speech works, it goes both ways (giggity); not just the side you agree with.
Now Primark compromised with the people complaining by simply not selling the t-shirt. No one forced them to make that decision; they did that on their own. And you know what? They can do that; not every little disagreement has to be a holy war. It is OK for businesses to compromise with a community without turning it into a big ordeal.
Not everyone is always going to like what the other's have to say (or express) but either the people in disagreement will just have to live with each other or they will have to work out a compromise.
It seems like some of you think only Primark has the right to freedom of expression and the complainers somehow (though twisted malformed reasoning) don't have the right to complain. But that is hypocrisy and guess what? They do have the right to complain; the Constitutionally protected right to complain.
Now Primark compromised with the people complaining by simply not selling the t-shirt. No one forced them to make that decision; they did that on their own. And you know what? They can do that; not every little disagreement has to be a holy war. It is OK for businesses to compromise with a community without turning it into a big ordeal.
Not everyone is always going to like what the other's have to say (or express) but either the people in disagreement will just have to live with each other or they will have to work out a compromise.
It seems like some of you think only Primark has the right to freedom of expression and the complainers somehow (though twisted malformed reasoning) don't have the right to complain. But that is hypocrisy and guess what? They do have the right to complain; the Constitutionally protected right to complain.
Last edited:
Is every boycott of a product in the history of free market capitalism with sufficient numbers that companies pull the product 'mob justice' and 'censoring free expression' or just things which people imagine 'SJWs' are behind?
There is nothing unconstitutional about boycotting a product or filing complaints, individually or en mass. The constitution protects their right as free speech to do so. Nothing illegal or unconstitutional has transpired in this event. This is just one example in a long list of successful product boycotts. Successful Consumer Boycotts: Ethical Consumer
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Yes, I do. And it's not being presented here. I asked you a question - twice, actually - relative to the situation, and your reply was "the Constitution" with no explanation as to what that meant, or how it allows for the action.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Actually, yeah. It is. And while that wasn't what happened here - it was two people who complained, and the shirt was pulled to avoid a scene; there was no compromise or mass market boycott - I remind again that this is one instance in a laundry list of similar instances that have ended that way, where "offensive" (read: conflicting) speech was promptly shut down.
I've seen shirts that read "I am a mother[REDACTED]", and shirts with scantly clad women all over. But heavens forbid it has a pop culture reference - clearly made - that some pastor associates with racism. As I said before, that says more about him than the shirt.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Actually you presented a straw man several times, and I only reply "the Constitution" once. You are pretending the complaints are more than they actually are, and that is the straw man. You are not auguring against a free exercise of freedom of speech in the form of a complaint. Instead you have built up this imagined threat, and that is what you are arguing against. You are not even arguing against me; the truth is the only person you are really arguing against here is yourself.
I gave you the link to that pdf because of your clumsy interpretation of the First Amendment. You may want to try actually reading it.
At any rate, I know from past debate that you tend to take off with things and stick to them no matter how off the wall it becomes so.....
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
"similar instances"
Of freedom of speech. You need to understand that is a right for everyone, and not just the side you agree with.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Cute, but the difference is that we're not making baseless demands.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Criticizing something isn't the same as censoring it.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Wouldn't you, if you thought it would have an effect?
Seriously, if you could simply write a letter to this guy saying, "your taking offense offends me," and you thought it likely that the person would withdraw their letter and walking dead would continue production?
I mean you are essentially putting the guy in the spotlight by taking to social media to complain about him. You see, capitalism works that way. People don't like something they bring attention to it and the market decides. Well part of that market is the seller. Not just the buyer. So, it is completely possible to bring concerns to the seller and have the seller make decisions that change the experience or buying options for future customers. Just because it didn't fall in such a way that suited your sensibilities, you are complaining.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Pointing to something and saying it is offensive isn't censoring either. So all we have here is self censorship in response to a complaint.
Are you suggesting there is a problem with self censorship?
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
So then you don't think they have right to complain?
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
No. I am arguing against false accusations becoming fact. Of individual offenses becoming grounds for total censorship. But yes, I can't argue against you when your only response is a lackluster re-direct and baseless cry of fallacy when everything mentioned and referenced is entirely relevant to this issue at hand.
But at least we have cats pushing watermelons, right?