Oh, jeez. "Racist" Walking Dead T-Shirt pulled due to complaints

[Revoltingest]

Context is important. I noticed that The Walking Dead is printed on the front shirt pocket. I assume that that those who are offended haven't taken the time to watch the scene for which the rhyme was used.

If the shirt offends - don't buy it - don't wear it.

We should also note that Negan only beats Caucasian & Asian people to death on the show.

Hmmm......
I'm beginning to feel triggered!

 

[Father Heathen]

So then you don't think they have right to complain?

How did you come up with that?

Of course they have the right to complain, just as I also have a right to point out how unfounded their imbecilic complaint actually is.

 

[Father Heathen]

Are you suggesting there is a problem with self censorship?

Only when it's completely unnecessary and done just to quell some ridiculous overreaction. It sets a bad precedent and reinforces such nonsense.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

How did you come up with that?

Of course they have the right to complain, just as I also have a right to point out how unfounded their imbecilic complaint actually is.

I am glad we agree: Everyone has the right to freedom of speech.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

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?

"I am arguing against false accusations becoming fact."

The fact is they had the Constitutionally protected right to complain.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

Can you show me a single instance where a successful suit against any boycott of a product was ruled to be unconstitutional free speech obstruction? Even one?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The fact is they had the Constitutionally protected right to complain.

Which, if you'll note, I said. Also where I criticize and question their right to limit the expression of others. Which was where your infamous and unexplained response steps in. Or did you ignore that part, and only reply to their recognized right to complain?

Can you show me a single instance where a successful suit against any boycott of a product was ruled to be unconstitutional free speech obstruction? Even one?

Actually, yes. Yet this example illustrates how "boycotting" has been radicalized in our modern society.

In 2010, San Francisco was moving to "boycott" Nevada over immigration laws. The motion was accused by many at the time to be unconstitutional, including President Obama.

Here's the problem. What is called a "boycott" today is not necessarily so. That boycott - while it was called such by those both supporting and criticizing it - was an embargo. Other examples of boycotting - such as The Chicago Review's refusal to review any Simon and Schuster book, due to their proximity to Milo, or opponents of California's Proposition 8 - are also embargos and protests, not boycotts. Same with the "boycotts" on Chic-fil-A, Best Buy, the Salvation Army, Target, and a sheriff in Schuyler County, Illinois. They're not boycotts, they're protests and demands for censorship or compliance with group agendas.

Neither was what happened with this TWD shirt a boycott. Were it, the couple in question simply would not have bought the shirt. That's what a boycott is; a refusal to support or oppose, a state of non-association. I strongly disagree with Hobby Lobby, so I just don't shop there. I don't demand that they change their policies, or demand that they stop making statements.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Which, if you'll note, I said. Also where I criticize and question their right to limit the expression of others. Which was where your infamous and unexplained response steps in. Or did you ignore that part, and only reply to their recognized right to complain?


Actually, yes. Yet this example illustrates how "boycotting" has been radicalized in our modern society.

In 2010, San Francisco was moving to "boycott" Nevada over immigration laws. The motion was accused by many at the time to be unconstitutional, including President Obama.

Here's the problem. What is called a "boycott" today is not necessarily so. That boycott - while it was called such by those both supporting and criticizing it - was an embargo. Other examples of boycotting - such as The Chicago Review's refusal to review any Simon and Schuster book, due to their proximity to Milo, or opponents of California's Proposition 8 - are also embargos and protests, not boycotts. Same with the "boycotts" on Chic-fil-A, Best Buy, the Salvation Army, Target, and a sheriff in Schuyler County, Illinois. They're not boycotts, they're protests and demands for censorship or compliance with group agendas.

Neither was what happened with this TWD shirt a boycott. Were it, the couple in question simply would not have bought the shirt. That's what a boycott is; a refusal to support or oppose, a state of non-association. I strongly disagree with Hobby Lobby, so I just don't shop there. I don't demand that they change their policies, or demand that they stop making statements.

Boycott and protest are not mutually exclusive term and actions, nor have they ever been defined as such. And an embargo doesnt apply as there's no official ban on the products or services. And you still didn't answer my question about any such boycott or protest being found by a US court to be illegal obstruction of free speech. I maintain that if you were to sue the organizers of the protest or boycott of the t-shirt, just like any other product, you would not be able to make any charges stick. Because freedom of speech and censorship laws do not work that way.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Which, if you'll note, I said. Also where I criticize and question their right to limit the expression of others. Which was where your infamous and unexplained response steps in. Or did you ignore that part, and only reply to their recognized right to complain?

"Also where I criticize and question their right to limit the expression of others."

Right, you erroneously called it unconstitutional. They have the right to complain and you calling it "oppressing" (or whatever verb you choose) doesn't change that. They still have the right to complain, a Constitutionally protected right. They didn't do anything unlawful, they didn't do anything unconstitutional, all they did was exercise their freedom of expression. You simply don't like what they said, so you are trying to demonize it and make it into more than it actually is.

But that seems to be your general M.O. You blow things out of proportion, then climb up on your high moral horse and denounce it. It is rather dishonest.

"infamous"

There you go trying to exaggerate things again.

"did you ignore that part"

I told you it was a straw man several times. At any rate, you have not actually shown that they unlawfully oppressed anyone. I mean let's see some evidence here; not just rhetoric but proof of unconstitutional oppression.

"only reply to their recognized right to complain?"

I am starting to think the more of you I ignore, the better. I don't really think I have much to gain from you.

I mean you are sitting here complaining about oppressing people's freedom of speech while arguing agaisnt their right to complain. It is senseless and it is hypocritical. And I am suppose to take you seriously? I don't think so, all you'll get from me is another funny picture.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Boycott and protest are not mutually exclusive term and actions, nor have they ever been defined as such.

No, they're not. Yet how is picketing Catholic and Mormon churches - an act of protest - a boycott? It would make sense if members of the church stopped going, but it wasn't the members.

And an embargo doesnt apply as there's no official ban on the products or services.

They were trying to ban services and businesses based in Nevada, as well as travel for city employees. Yet the boycott never went anywhere. It was to go before city courts, and then it just disappeared. I'm not sure what exactly you're wanting here.

More to the point, I'm not sure how that relates to people demanding the removal of what offends them individually, rather than simply not consuming it. As is the root issue here.

I would also argue that a court case brought forward by any artist against slander or defamation (tantamount to this preposterous cry of "racism") would stand a good chance at winning; I've had to defend similar such artworks of my own that have been reported on Facebook and YouTube, and have come out on top. All it would take, I pose, is more artists to stand by their work, rather than cave to ridiculous criticism. More artists like Scott LoBaido, who has received opposition and attempts to shut him down numerous times, but defiantly continues to paint his American flags.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Right, you erroneously called it unconstitutional.

Erroneously... how? And please, don't just answer "the constitution." I have stated numerous times that the couple does have the right to complain. They and anyone else that gets their britches in a bunch over whatever twists them wrong. Yet I ask, again, what gives them the right to censor others?

You simply don't like what they said,

Wrong, I don't really care what they said. Or what they think. What I care about is that an artist's expression was denied. I care about that very much. An issue which adds to the pile of various forms of expression and free speech that is being limited, censored, slandered, and punished. Speech that is not offensive or hateful in it's own right, but is contrary to a far-left ideology. Your molehills are pilling up to something very ugly.

But that seems to be your general M.O.

Spare us the ad hominem.

I told you it was a straw man several times.

You could tell me that it's a fish and it wouldn't change it's relevance to the overall issue here. Nor is it a misconception or false stance of yours that is being fervently attacked as though it's your actual argument. It is clearly you responding to a question with nothing more than "Because reasons."

I am starting to think the more of you I ignore, the better.

Then do so. No skin off my back, and it would be one less misrepresentation. You complain about strawmen, yet persistently you've accused me of arguing against the right to complain; completely contrary to what I have clearly said. That is a dishonest argument, and I think you know it.

 

[McBell]

Yes, how dare people get offend, the nerve of those people finding something offensive. Then the audacity to complain about it, well it just boils my blood.

In a week you'll forget this horrible outrage and you'll move on to the next horrible outrage, just like the people that got bent over the t-shirt.

your transference is showing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This shirt made me think a racist thought. That must mean the shirt is racist.

 

[Falvlun]

My summation:

Shirt was not racist.
People looking for reasons to be offended make their cause less legitimate in the long run.
Everything was Constitutional about what happened.

 

[McBell]

This shirt made me think a racist thought. That must mean the shirt is racist.

I would argue the shirt is not racist.
Racism is something people do, not inanimate objects.
Thus, those who think the shirt is racist are the ones who are actually racist

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I would argue the shirt is not racist.
Racism is something people do, not inanimate objects.
Thus, those who think the shirt is racist are the ones who are actually racist

Isn't that what I said?

 

[McBell]

Isn't that what I said?

Hmmm....?
What?

Oh, yeah, I guess it is.

 

[Falvlun]

I would argue the shirt is not racist.
Racism is something people do, not inanimate objects.
Thus, those who think the shirt is racist are the ones who are actually racist

I dunno. A shirt that says "White people are superior to all other races", with some swastikas for decoration, would be a pretty racist shirt.

 

[McBell]

I dunno. A shirt that says "White people are superior to all other races", with some swastikas for decoration, would be a pretty racist shirt.

really?
Who is the shirt racist against?
How do you know?

 

[Falvlun]

really?
Who is the shirt racist against?
How do you know?

Everyone not white?
Because it tells me?

Ultimately, yes, it would be racist people who make the shirt and racist people who wear the shirt, in order to spread the racist message the shirt bears. By extension, that makes the shirt racist.