Jump to content

Primark removes 'racist' shirt


Erik

Primark removes 'racist' shirts  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. Were the shirts racist and offensive?

    • Yes, the shirts were racist and offensive.
    • No, the shirts weren't racist and offensive.
  2. 2. Did Primark do the right thing by removing the shirts from their stores?

    • Yes, they did the right thing by removing the shirts.
    • No, they didn't do the right thing by removing the shirts.


Recommended Posts

This is my problem with this argument. This doesn't work because it's the opposite way. The rhyme was once negative and is now positive/harmless.

Your problem with the argument is how an analogy works?

 

You don't find X offensive, but others do.

So I present an example, where the shoo is on the other foot - where others don't find Y offensive, but you do.

 

So you can clearly see & understand where your argument doesn't hold up.

 

 

Things like

  • being alive to when it was prominently used in it's negative connotation
  • being the one it was used negatively against
  • not in all contexts having a negative connotation
  • the creator not intending it in the negative connotation
  • ...
Are all things you brought up. But if you'd step outside of your own personal "this isn't offensive to me" bias, you'd see these are extremely poor arguments.

 

 

The rhyme is in the context of one culture

That's not relevant to the analogy
  • A swastika is offensive to some, while not offensive to others
  • This rhyme (or, "this rhyme, when associated with violence", if you want) is offensive to some, while not offensive to others
it works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your problem with the argument is how an analogy works?

 

You don't find X offensive, but others do.

So I present an example, where the shoo is on the other foot - where others don't find Y offensive, but you do.

 

So you can clearly see & understand where your argument doesn't hold up.

 

 

Things like

  • being alive to when it was prominently used in it's negative connotation
  • being the one it was used negatively against
  • not in all contexts having a negative connotation
  • the creator not intending it in the negative connotation
  • ...
Are all things you brought up. But if you'd step outside of your own personal "this isn't offensive to me" bias, you'd see these are extremely poor arguments.

 

 

That's not relevant to the analogy

  • A swastika is offensive to some, while not offensive to others
  • This rhyme (or, "this rhyme, when associated with violence", if you want) is offensive to some, while not offensive to others
it works.

 

I have a feeling you're just going to keep replying until one of us has a stroke or something (as a matter of fact, I know that's true because this happens every single time there's a post I reply to in this subforum) , so this is how I'm going to conclude my argument. A rhyme that hasn't had racial implications in nearly a century shouldn't be racist to anybody, especially when there are no implications to race in it's use here. A symbol that, in this hemisphere, is associated with the mass genocide of a race and numerous other atrocities, is offensive except in the other hemisphere where it is a symbol of peace. Saying 

  • A swastika is offensive to some, while not offensive to others
  • This rhyme (or, "this rhyme, when associated with violence", if you want) is offensive to some, while not offensive to others

Is dumbing it down too much. You aren't acknowledging that it's a much bigger picture when it comes to two different halves of the world. 

 

Additionally, if you think that the basis of my argument is anywhere near "it's not offensive to me specifically", then either you haven't been reading or I just can't do a damn thing to convince you of the reality of the argument. If you think my argument is weak compared to your overly simplistic one above is a tad ludicrous. Once again, if this is offensive to anybody, they need a thicker skin. You all know I'm right deep down. 

 

I'm done here.

 

-HarryG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shirt wasn't designed with the intention of hurting racial sentiments/racism. It didn't even contain anything harmful in particular.

It shouldn't have been removed.

 

The worst part about the 'special snowflakes' and Social Justice Tumblrinas is that people give in to their crying and temper tantrums. They're like children, when one of them throws a temper tantrum, you do NOT give in to them. If you do, it'll teach them that they can get their way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rhyme that hasn't had racial implications in nearly a century shouldn't be racist to anybody, especially when there are no implications to race in it's use here.

I understand that's your position, but you don't seem to understnad mine: as association is an involentary reflex, what should and what shouldn't, doesn't really matter.

 

that people perhaps shouldn't be afraid of 1ft heights, or that people perhaps shouldn't be afraid of spiders, either (supposing you live in a country where there are no deadly spiders).

But they are.

 

In the end, what should and shouldn't takes a back seat on what is and isn't.

 

The worst part about the 'special snowflakes' and Social Justice Tumblrinas is that people give in to their crying and temper tantrums. They're like children, when one of them throws a temper tantrum, you do NOT give in to them. If you do, it'll teach them that they can get their way.

I can only suggest you think twice before starting a business with that attitute.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that's your position, but you don't seem to understnad mine: as association is an involentary reflex, what should and what shouldn't, doesn't really matter.

 

that people perhaps shouldn't be afraid of 1ft heights, or that people perhaps shouldn't be afraid of spiders, either (supposing you live in a country where there are no deadly spiders).

But they are.

 

In the end, what should and shouldn't takes a back seat on what is and isn't.

 

 

Ok, I like this summary. I'll accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never heard of that being racist.

 

I know that as Eeny meanie miney moe catch a thief by his toe, if he screams let him go eeny meanie miny moe

 

as children in the playground we had these little chants to pick who was going to be "IT" for a game of tag/hide and seek each hand/head would be tapped by 1 person until the end of the Rhyme then whoever was last would be it and we'd all run away :l Also another I remember was IP DIP DOO OUT GOES YOU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only suggest you think twice before starting a business with that attitute.

 

While "The Truth" certainly has a unique way of putting it, the point he's bringing up is certainly worth a bit of discussion. How many of the people, as he put, "throwing tantrums" are speaking out from genuine offence; how many are speaking out because they think they are standing up for a group of people whom they have no real clue as to whether or not this shirt held any meaning to; how many are speaking out because they want an excuse to feel a feeling of "righteous" indignation? In this particular issue, I would say that the majority fall into the latter two categories, with the last being the most common of the two. Most people who take offence to something someone expresses either choose to ignore it, or will politely point out that they have an issue with it. They wait patiently for a response, and then they move on when they get it. The people who drag these issues out into big hullabaloos usually have some reason for it other than the actual message they are speaking out against. Whether their motives lie in personal fulfillment or elsewhere is often not always obvious to anyone else, but the reason they front is commonly not genuine. It's the actions of people who fall in the last category that I hold a distinct disapproval for. Pretending to be mad because something could be perceived as racist, unkind, or inappropriate is a low thing to do. Making someone feel bad, or trying to force them to recall a product based on an aging connection to past wrongs seems shady and manipulative to put it lightly. While not everyone will agree on what falls within the purview of manipulation in this context, I think most people would agree that they don't like being manipulated.

 

It goes without saying that this is a general statement, is hardly all-inclusive, and contains my own opinions on the matter, but I think I did a decent job covering this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

While "The Truth" certainly has a unique way of putting it, the point he's bringing up is certainly worth a bit of discussion.

worth a bit of discussion? I dunno. After all

 

I would say that the majority fall into the latter two categories, with the last being the most common of the two.

You would say that? OK, but based on what? A scientific study on the matter of whom was rightly offended by this t-shirt?

Or would you say that because you just assume it's true, even if you don't know wether it is or isn't?

 

That would make your block of text come down to nice, but fallicious, block of circular reasoning: "if you assume that people are in the wrong being offended by it ... you'll conclude that they were in the wrong being offended by it".

 

So ... I'm not quite sure what you think is worth a bit of discussion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pulling it from their shelves was smart, however the fact that they did is just plain stupid. Typical people going out of their way to find offence in everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

worth a bit of discussion? I dunno. After all

 

I would say that the majority fall into the latter two categories, with the last being the most common of the two.

You would say that? OK, but based on what? A scientific study on the matter of whom was rightly offended by this t-shirt?

Or would you say that because you just assume it's true, even if you don't know wether it is or isn't?

 

That would make your block of text come down to nice, but fallicious, block of circular reasoning: "if you assume that people are in the wrong being offended by it ... you'll conclude that they were in the wrong being offended by it".

 

So ... I'm not quite sure what you think is worth a bit of discussion.

 

To answer your question, "I would say..." would probably have better been put as "Based on my own observations, I would say...". As for where these observations come from, most of them are from watching various online forums on news sites. I've noticed that often times I will see the people taking offence at something fall back to some form of the following argument when asked to justify their claimed offence: "It could be taken that way, so that gives me the right to interpret it that way". I'd point out that the original creator of the statement people are taking offence at probably had a specific interpretation in mind when they made it, and interpreting it in a contradictory manor compromises the validity of an argument based solely on that interpretation of the statement. So the reasoning I was attempting to convey was more like this: "Twisting someone's words before taking offence at them makes that offence inherently unjustified as it's no-longer the original statement which is causing the offence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your question, "I would say..." would probably have better been put as "Based on my own observations, I would say..."

Perhaps better, though helpful - not as much.

 

It just shifts the problem from circular reasoning to anecdotal evidence is fallicious.

 

From anything from echo-chambers to simply, innocently, forgetting times people were justly offended ... anecdotal evidence is a poor foundatop for an argument.

 

when asked to justify their claimed offence: "It could be taken that way, so that gives me the right to interpret it that way"

 

 

Twisting someone's words before taking offence at them makes that offence inherently unjustified as it's no-longer the original statement which is causing the offence

And to that I disagree - because in most cases (as most people aren't inherently malicious), we're talking about involentairy reflexive feeling, which makes "Twisting someone's words before taking offense" simply means "interpreting someone's words".

 

when asked to justify reflexive feelings, such as being offended, but to take another example, a fear of spiders, you'll most likely get a poor reasoning.

 

But that doesn't change that you can't just reason:

 

you can't create a logically sound argument why you're afraid of spiders

 

ergo your fear is unjustified

 

ergo I get to let my pet spiders roam free

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps better, though helpful - not as much.

 

It just shifts the problem from circular reasoning to anecdotal evidence is fallicious.

 

From anything from echo-chambers to simply, innocently, forgetting times people were justly offended ... anecdotal evidence is a poor foundatop for an argument.

 

And to that I disagree - because in most cases (as most people aren't inherently malicious), we're talking about involentairy reflexive feeling, which makes "Twisting someone's words before taking offense" simply means "interpreting someone's words".

 

when asked to justify reflexive feelings, such as being offended, but to take another example, a fear of spiders, you'll most likely get a poor reasoning.

 

But that doesn't change that you can't just reason:

 

you can't create a logically sound argument why you're afraid of spiders

 

ergo your fear is unjustified

 

ergo I get to let my pet spiders roam free

 

Well your first point would be valid if I were discussing to every single instance in which someone got offended over something, be it just or in-just. But that isn't the case as I'm specifically referring to cases where something is blown out of proportion before people begin getting offended about it. As for the people not being inherently malicious, you're right that they're not, but that doesn't mean they won't get offended over something that isn't offensive if they receive fallacious information (be it from a source they trust, or because don't take the time to verify it). Which brings up an interesting question: Can a person's actions be inherently malicious if the malice was rooted in the information they were given rather than their own intentions? I would say such a case is an example of good intentions leading to a net negative effect; but I'm no philosopher, so take it as you will, that's just my opinion. As for the reason I used an anecdote to describe my position, I felt the topic was broad enough that a generalization would better convey what I wanted to say rather than specific examples would. As for the justification issue, to be justified in taking offence, the material about which you're getting offended needs to be both factually correct as well as properly take into account what the original intent of the speaker was. You can be reflexively offended about something, but that offence can go away just as fast if you notice that the thing you were offended by is not accurate. As for the spider thing, it's entirely reasonable to be afraid of them. Some of them are venomous and it's not always easy to tell the difference between the kinds that are and aren't at a distance. That's just self preservation kicking in, nothing irrational or illogical about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well your first point would be valid if I were discussing to every single instance in which someone got offended over something, be it just or in-just.

But that isn't the case as I'm specifically referring to cases where something is blown out of proportion before people begin getting offended about it.

sigh ... I am honestly not seeing how you think that's a better argument.

 

you're SPECIFICALLY talking ONLY the people who are unjustly offended ... yet want to reach a conclusion about wether or not they were unjustly offended?

 

Sorry, but again - it's still cherry picking your initial state while trying to reach a general conclusion.

 

As for the spider thing, it's entirely reasonable to be afraid of them. Some of them are venomous

 

That's just self preservation kicking in, nothing irrational or illogical about it.

See, it's hard to take you servious, when I apparently need to remind you that in countries where there are no dangerous spiders, there are still people who are afraid of them.

Many people suffer from (mild*) cases of arachnophobia or acrophobia (fear of heights - for example people who aren't willing to stand on a stable chair - dispite their ability to jump of if they would start to lose their balance).

 

Phobias - even mld ones -, in case I need to remind you, are per definition marked by their irrationalituy or disproportionate response. So, to try to argue that they are in fact rationalituy/proportionate responses is nonsensical.

 

 

 

* not the "run away screeming" levels of intensity, but still scared.

 

but that doesn't mean they won't get offended over something that isn't offensive

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Something is offensive if people get offended by it, just like something is scary if people get scared by it.

 

It's again, a nice example of circular logic: For any X

  • Presume: X isn't offensive
  • (Definition of offensive: People aren't (justly) offended by it)
  • Conclusion: People who offended by X aren't justly offended

Which brings up an interesting question: Can a person's actions be inherently malicious if the malice was rooted in the information they were given rather than their own intentions?

You do know that malice means "wrongful intention".

 

Can a person be malicious? Sure.

consider malicious if he acted on "bad" intel? nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sigh ...

 

At this point I can't tell if you actually disagree or of you're trying to troll me. Either way, I've said my piece on the topic and any more time spent discussing it would be wasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point I can't tell if you actually disagree or of you're trying to troll me. Either way, I've said my piece on the topic and any more time spent discussing it would be wasted.

 

Disagree with what? you're saying

 

How many of the people, as he put, "throwing tantrums" are speaking out from genuine offence;

how many are speaking out because they think they are standing up for a group of people whom they have no real clue as to whether or not this shirt held any meaning to;

how many are speaking out because they want an excuse to feel a feeling of "righteous" indignation?

 

In this particular issue, I would say that the majority fall into the latter two categories, with the last being the most common of the two.

Yet, claiming

 

I'm specifically referring to cases where something is blown out of proportion

 

You litterly argue

 

>> "A B or C? I would say C"

<< You would say that? OK, but based on what??

>> Because I'm specifically referring to C

If you claim you can not tell yourself that this logic is utter nonsense, then I'm not the one trolling here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took you that long did it? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Obviously. As lack of decent argumentation significantly quenches my intrest in whatever passes for a "discussion" now a days, I'm not inclined to check the thread on a daily basis. I simply no longer have any expectation of finding a justified rational for your point not being fallicious; and your one-liner, while quirky, only confirms you've got nothing more to add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously. As lack of decent argumentation significantly quenches my intrest in whatever passes for a "discussion" now a days, I'm not inclined to check the thread on a daily basis. I simply no longer have any expectation of finding a justified rational for your point not being fallicious; and your one-liner, while quirky, only confirms you've got nothing more to add.

 

I could add 2 to 2 if you like... 2 + 2 = 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...