More political correctness gone mad

January 5th, 2012 at 3:21 pm by David Farrar

Do you remember how Air NZ changed its safety video, after a few people took offence at the gay steward lining up (unsuccessfully) for a kiss from the All Black, after the stewardess got one.

Those taking offence were a small minority, and the steward himself didn’t think it was at all offensive – in fact he wwas annoyed it got censored.

We have much the same with the Libra ad:

The drag queen star of a controversial tampon advertisement, pulled amid backlash from the transgender community, has defended the campaign and has hit out against “dragphobia”.

The Libra ad features a blonde woman and a drag queen in a bathroom seemingly competing against one another as they apply make-up and adjust their bras.

When the woman produces a tampon, the drag queen walks out defeated.

Transgender advocates slammed the ad as transphobic, by implying people could only be women if they got their periods.

No, it was just a joke.

I’m all for gay marriage, gay adoption, non-discrimination etc, but this does not mean one can’t be the butt of a joke. It’s not as if it was mean or vicious. People should concentrate on real issues of discrimination.

The Melbourne drag queen who stars in the ad, Sandee Crack, has defended his involvement in the ad.

In a blog post yesterday he said he identified as a gay man who dressed in drag as a performer, and had never considered himself transgendered.

He slammed the backlash against the ad as “dragphobia”.

“Unfortunately, a small portion of the trans community have chosen to view the ad as a personal attack on their fight to be viewed as equal women within society. This is a fight I also feel strongly about and I hope to help educate the wider community on.

“However, I feel hurt that representing myself as a drag queen on television and playing out a common place scenario in my life has lead to a clear ‘dragphobia’ among some transgendered individuals, who wish to pull the plug on something that reflects true honesty about the life of a drag queen.” …

He said he was shown the ad before its release and was “thrilled with it”.

“I believe strongly that by putting a drag queen into the mainstream media, we are one step closer to acceptance and this is something I am very proud to be part of.”

Any use of humour is almost inevitably going to offend someone.

I guess the scene in Wedding Crashers where Todd hits on Vince Vaughan’s character who is tied to his bed, should be banned because it makes gay men looks like predators. But hell Isla Fisher’s character makes women look like rapists, so that scene should be banned also. Let’s just ban anything which uses a stereotype.

Tags:

60 Responses to “More political correctness gone mad”

  1. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    Queer, very queer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. 3-coil (1,220 comments) says:

    I’m with Ricky Gervais on this one:

    “Just because someone is offended doesn’t mean they’re right. Some people are offended by equality or mixed marriage. So you’re offended? So what?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Longknives (4,746 comments) says:

    Christ the World has gone mad… Luckily the brilliance of Monty Python -whose self-professed aim was to “offend absolutely everyone”- were around in the 70s as they’d likely be hung,drawn and quartered by the PC Nazis these days…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. infused (654 comments) says:

    Yes, I commented on their Facebook site. The comments against them were stupid. Ad is good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. XChequer (298 comments) says:

    Sorry, am I missing something?

    Giggle

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    “personal attack on their fight to be viewed as equal women within society”

    They are not women, never will be. Freakshows more like it. Get over yourselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    The ad is offensive to the transgender community. It portrays a negative stereotype. Just as portraying a fat person as lazy or a religious person as fanatical or an old person as senile or a Maori as criminal or a Muslim as a terrorist does the same thing.

    They have every right to be offended, just as Libra have every right to be offensive.

    Incidentally, the Libra brand is manufactured by Stayfree and Stayfree is a division of McNeil-PPC which in turn is owned by Johnston & Johnston.

    So I guess as a guy, I’ll be avoiding J&J stuff for a while.

    [DPF: You have the company wrong. J&J have e-mailed to say:

    To set the record straight, Libra is owned by a completely different company and is not associated with Stayfree or Johnson & Johnson.

    Stayfree would like to clear up any confusion by letting people know that our brand is NOT associated with the advertising in question. A full list of our products can be seen on our website http://www.stayfree.co.nz ]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    “So I guess as a gay mincing shirtlifter, I’ll be avoiding J&J stuff for a while.”

    too right..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    … I’ll be avoiding J&J stuff for a while.

    Until your next period, I guess. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    ” Dave..they’re takin the piss and being nasty to me again..can ya stop them “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    Thing is that by pandering to everyone who chooses to be offended we are making the world a grey dull place. There is possibly an argument to lay off racial groups & cripples as they do not choose to be included in these groups & can do nothing to change.

    Not so where association with a community or clique is voluntary. If one chooses to express him/herself as a Muslim, a Morris dancer or as transgendered, expression of that choice falls into the category of free choice. That person is & should be fair game.

    …”I’ll be avoiding J&J stuff for a while.”…. Whatever blows your dress up!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    SC . So no incontinence panties this month, very brave.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    nasska says:- “That person is & should be fair game.”

    So your saying that anyone who doesn’t conform to the norm “should” be fair game? I suppose that is ‘the normal’ way of behaving.

    But there is a blatant contradiction in what you just stated. You say it would be a dull and grey world if we weren’t to take the piss out of people who don’t conform, and yet the act of taking the piss is in effect discouraging them to be different.

    Besides, as I stated, Libra has every right to say what they want, just as I have every right to avoid their products and encourage others to do the same.

    Also, I’m quite happy to see minorities satirized in comedy, but not by a multinational.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Brian (Shadowfoot) (80 comments) says:

    I think the ad should have had the dragqueen smile at the end, being happy to not have to use the product, but that wouldn’t be promotional for Libra. Do women like using tampons?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Steve (4,562 comments) says:

    The other day someone said:
    “I tried them once and I still can’t cycle, swim or ride a horse”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    hmmmm I learnt something today transies and drag queens are two different creatures. From what I get from what he was saying is that there must part time drag queens, full time drag queens, drag queens who only dress up to perform, and then there are transies. Are there different sorts apart from pre & post op? Low voice transies vs high voice tansies – very confusing.

    Does a woman who wants to be a man join a different club to a man who wants to be a woman? What if a man wants to be a really old woman do ya give him a different name?

    Now the really difficult one what do ya call a transie woman post op who then decides he wants to be a fella again? What do ya call a transie woman who dresses like a guy only for performances? Heck you could write a whole essay discussing all sorts of odd permutations.

    To be honest guys & gals is a lot simpler to comprehend methinks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. JamesS (352 comments) says:

    As usual the politically correct, chattering class brigade have made a universal pronouncement without actually bothering to ask gay men if they are offended. They are not. Gay men are pissing themselves laughing at the advert and mystified at all the fuss (if you do not believe me pop down to Checkmates sauna where it has been a topic of conversation the last few days)

    I should also point out the advert shows a ‘drag queen’ – a man dressed up as a woman. Generally speaking drag queens are not transgendered (a ‘man’ who has had the chop to become a woman) but are gay men who dress as females and appear in (usually) hilarious shows at gay niteclubs to entertain people.

    Let me assure you, so there is no misunderstanding, no gay people in NZ are remotely offended by this advert (and are unsure why anyone would think they would be as the advert is designed to be amusing)

    One further comment – the average tranny (‘man’ who has had the chop), in my experience, is as tough as old boots! not the sort of people to get offended by anything at all, let alone a tv advert. Needless to say the PC brigade have not actually met any trannies so would not realise this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    If those people are committed to their way of life I can see no reason why they should be treated like shrinking violets. The fact that they choose a particular religion or dress is their decision…..if they believe that what they are doing is right any comments you or I make should be water off a duck’s back.

    Individual or multinational…..it doesn’t make much difference…..most of these delicate wallflowers who complain endlessly are full of themselves & their human rights. If it makes them cry it’s just awful & the gummint shouldn’t let that nasty corporation upset them.

    Let them HTFU.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    Scott Chris…

    Besides, as I stated, Libra has every right to say what they want, just as I have every right to avoid their products and encourage others to do the same.

    How about if voters decided that Libra doesn’t have a right? I mean voters lobby their representatives in Parliament to ban such ad? Or perhaps a party is to campaign on such an issue to ban it which approved by majority of voters (a mandate). Do you think that Libra’s right disappear then, simply because of the mandate?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    “if you do not believe me pop down to Checkmates sauna where it has been a topic of conversation the last few days”

    Is that one of those gay pick up joints where “men” sodomise each other?. Ummm..no thanks, take ya word for it Jim.

    [DPF: Im not an expert on these saunas, but understand that fellation is the more normal activity, rather than anal intercourse.

    If they are a bit shy, it might just be a bit of mutual masturbation]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    I posted this in GD the other day, but it’s worth posting again.
    It’s by Robert R. Reilly about our ‘culture of vice’. He hits the nail right on the head in explaining why these minority groups have to have their conduct normalized and accepted by society.

    In The Ethics Aristotle wrote, “men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.” This is also true when revolutionary changes are cultural. What might these “private” reasons be, and why do they become public in the form of revolutionary changes? The answer to these questions lies in the intimate psychology of moral failure.

    For any individual, moral failure is hard to live with because of the rebuke of conscience. Habitual moral failure, what used to be called vice, can be lived with only by obliterating conscience through rationalization. When we rationalize, we convince ourselves that heretofore forbidden desires are permissible. We advance the reality of the desires over the reality of the moral order to which the desires should be subordinated. In our minds we replace the reality of moral order with something more congenial to the activity we are excusing. In short, we assert that bad is good.

    Most people recover from their rationalizations when remorse and reality set back in. But when morally disordered acts become the defining centerpiece of one’s life, vice can permanently pervert reason. Entrenched moral aberrations then impel people to rationalize vice not only to themselves but to others as well. Thus rationalizations become an engine for revolutionary change that will affect society as a whole.

    The power of rationalization drives the culture war, gives it its particular revolutionary character, and makes its advocates indefatigable. It may draw its energy from desperation, but it is all the more powerful for that. Since failed rationalization means self-recrimination, it must be avoided at all cost. For this reason, the differences over which the culture war is being fought are not subject to reasoned discourse. Persons protecting themselves by rationalizing are interested not in finding the truth, but in maintaining the illusion that allows them to continue their behavior. For them to succeed in this, everyone must accede to their rationalization. This is why revolutionary change is required. The necessity for self-justification requires the complicity of the whole culture. Holdouts cannot be tolerated because they are potential rebukes. The self-hatred, anger, and guilt that a person possessed of a functioning conscience would normally feel from doing wrong are redirected by the rationalization and projected upon society as a whole (if the society is healthy), or upon those in society who do not accept the rationalization.

    The homosexual movement’s rationalization is far more widely advanced in its claims. According to Jeffrey Levi, former executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, “We (homosexuals)_ are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a right to protection from wrong. We have a right – as heterosexuals have already – to see government and society affirm our lives.” Since only the act of sodomy differentiates an active homosexual from a heterosexual, homosexuals want “government and society” to affirm that sodomy is morally equivalent to the marital act. “Coming out of the closet” can only mean an assent on the level of moral principle to what would otherwise be considered morally disordered.

    And so it must be. If you are going to center your public life on the private act of sodomy, you had better transform sodomy into a highly moral act. If sodomy is a moral disorder, it cannot be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. On the other hand, if it is a highly moral act, it should serve as the basis for marriage, family (adoption), and community. As a moral act, sodomy should be normative. If it is normative, it should be taught in our schools as a standard. In fact, homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be ordained as priests. All of this is happening. It was predictable. The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest. How successful that conquest has been can be seen in the poverty of the rhetoric of its opponents. In supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, the best one congressman could do was to say, “America is not yet ready for homosexual marriage,” as if we simply need a decent interval to adjust ourselves to its inevitable arrival

    http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/ReillyCultureVice.php

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. JamesS (352 comments) says:

    Scott Chris – if I can tear you away from reading Mein Kampf for a moment – can you tell me when you were last in a gay sauna or niteclub and actually MET some drag queens or transgendered people?

    “The ad is offensive to the transgendered community” – on what do you base that assertion? you own opinion, or on facts?

    Have been at 2 saunas and 3 gay niteclubs so far this week (and it is only Thursday) and have yet to meet anyone not pissing themselves laughing at the advert; so please explain to us your evidence that the ad is offending anybody.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    nasska says:- “Individual or multinational…..it doesn’t make much difference”

    I think it does. When you or I tell a joke, that’s one thing. When the government or a multinational does it, it is another. It basically comes down to ethical responsibility.

    For instance, when one kid calls another kid a fat faggot, that’s just life. The power relations are basically equal. But when a teacher calls a kid a fat faggot, it is completely inappropriate in most people’s view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    When you or I tell a joke, that’s one thing. When the government or a multinational does it, it is another. It basically comes down to ethical responsibility.

    It’s the same with moral conduct. If persons engage in immoral or unnatural conduct at home, that is one thing, and I don’t care so much. When the same conduct is protected under law by the government, and those who disagree with it are smeared and arrested for their disagreement; and when that same conduct is taught to children in school as being normal, that is another thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi says:- “How about if voters decided that Libra doesn’t have a right? I mean voters lobby their representatives in Parliament to ban such ad?”

    As a liberal I would lobby against banning anything that doesn’t cause substantial harm. Hurt feelings doesn’t constitute substantial harm in my opinion, but it doesn’t mean I’m not going to object to an insensitive and crass ad by boycotting its products.

    On the other hand, I’m a complete hypocrite because I find the Hell Pizza ads quite funny, but to be morally consistent, I’ll have to boycott their product as well because their ads offend Christians. Damn. Moral indignation is all very well if it doesn’t involve actual commitment….And it’s much more fashionable to stick up for trannies ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    JamesS makes a bloody good point.

    How often when we hear of some group or another being offended & traumatised by what has been said does anyone bother going & asking some representatives of that group whether it actually worries them? Most of the time the slight is only in the head of some mad expert in social engineering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    nasska, yes, in the U.S it’s usually GLAAD who jump on anything with the slightest whiff of offensiveness to gays, and CAIR for any imagined insult against Islam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    [DPF: Im not an expert on these saunas, but understand that fellation is the more normal activity, rather than anal intercourse.

    If they are a bit shy, it might just be a bit of mutual masturbation]

    yea, nothing like whacking off in front of another dude to break the ice

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. big bruv (13,895 comments) says:

    It seems to me that this drag bloke (and the rest of the cross dressing community) seem to be mostly offended because somebody has pointed out the blindingly obvious, namely that blokes have no fucking need for tampons.

    I imagine that in the world of the PC morons they want the rest of us to pretend that drag blokes can use Tampons just so they do not feel left out. The rest of us are expected to play along with their game lest they feel alienated by society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. big bruv (13,895 comments) says:

    Dime

    Are you still doing that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. nasska (11,510 comments) says:

    dime

    Different strokes for different folks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    [DPF: Im not an expert on these saunas…

    Scottchris, can you confirm what goes on in these houses of debauchery? Is it only knob polishing or is there a bit of hershey highway carry on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    big bruv, you nailed it.

    It is sad. I wonder if NZ’s greatest comedian, Billy T, would have been able to survive today’s PC police.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    labours a joke says:- “can you confirm what goes on in these houses of debauchery?”

    Not first hand, no, but seeing as you’re curious, don’t be afraid. Try them out. You know you want to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Manolo (13,774 comments) says:

    Scott, you’re the most politically correct and girl’s blouse I’ve ever met.
    Man up and grow some testicles. Stop your fear of offending others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. labours a joke (442 comments) says:

    Yes I agree Manolo..I can imagine scottchris sitting down to pee. So PC. So sickly white liberal. So handwringing. Do you wear sandals and sox scottchris? I bet you wear your g-strings back to front.

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “Scott, you’re the most politically correct and girl’s blouse I’ve ever met.”

    lmao and yet he hates women. go figure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. big bruv (13,895 comments) says:

    Other_Andy

    I could not care less if a bloke wants to dress up as a chick, all power to them as far as I am concerned but I will not be forced to pretend they are anything other than blokes (or cocks in frocks) by the PC wankers in our society.

    The other thing I wonder about is how the left (led by the Green party wankers) would have us address these blokes?, no doubt we would all be expected to address them as ‘Ms’ or ‘Miss’ lest it hurts their feelings.

    Now, I am not a bloke who goes out of his way to offend people but there is no bloody way that I am going to call some bloke in a frock ‘Ms’ or ‘Miss’, the very best they can expect out of me is a traditional ‘Gidday mate’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    No Manolo, I am simply articulating a liberal position. Which I’m happy to debate. Liberals are all for frank discussion whereas your position simply seems to be confined to one of throwing stones.

    I’ll put it this way. Political correctness has always been a part of society, and social progressiveness has always caused waves. Imagine the uproar with the abolition of slavery, the enfranchisement of women the desegregation of schools the legalization of homosexuality etc.

    And with all these changes, there have always been people like you who want to preserve the status quo. Too bad, because the liberal progressives are winning as history has shown. So I suggest you get used to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    I’m still of the belief that the whole “controversy” is generated by the ad agency itself. It was a reasonable ad, but they’ve outdone themselves getting this discussed in our major news websites and blogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Yvette (2,820 comments) says:

    I was quite offended actually by a headline reporting the outcome –
    “Tampon ad pulled’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Fletch (2,268) Says:
    January 5th, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    I posted this in GD the other day, but it’s worth posting again…

    For any individual, moral failure is hard to live with because…

    No need to post that rubbish again. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality, notwithstanding that you are free to hold any stupid opinion you like which advocates the contrary.

    The spiel you cited fails to address the fundamental question of what it means for something to be immoral and to provide a rational basis for moral principles. You proceed from the premise that homosexuality is wrong despite the fact that people with common sense and an ounce of objectivity do not agree with that premise thus rendering the rest of your post an exercise in mental masturbation: something to be consumed only by those who already suffer the delusion that homosexuality is a threat to their way of life.

    Most homosexuals simply want to get on with their life and for anyone to just get on with their life they require the equal protection of government and thus an affirmation that their conduct is morally acceptable and therefore deserving of such legal protection. This is not the same as demanding that you as an individual provide such an affirmation. In a free society individuals are free to be bigoted assholes if they so desire and I will always consider your freedom in that regard to be very important. But an affirmation by government of the moral acceptability of homosexual conduct, and consequently the award of legal protection including but not limited to the recognition of homosexual partnerships, does not in any way reduce or diminish your freedom or your rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    DPF – “I’m all for gay marriage, gay adoption, non-discrimination etc, but this does not mean one can’t be the butt of a joke. It’s not as if it was mean or vicious.”

    David sums it up in a nutshell. A small group of feminists and transgenders taking themselves far too seriously. It is essential for our mental health that we be able to laugh at ourselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    big bruv (9,771) Says:
    January 5th, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    I could not care less if a bloke wants to dress up as a chick, all power to them as far as I am concerned but I will not be forced to pretend they are anything other than blokes (or cocks in frocks) by the PC wankers in our society.

    The other thing I wonder about is how the left (led by the Green party wankers) would have us address these blokes?, no doubt we would all be expected to address them as ‘Ms’ or ‘Miss’ lest it hurts their feelings.

    Now, I am not a bloke who goes out of his way to offend people but there is no bloody way that I am going to call some bloke in a frock ‘Ms’ or ‘Miss’, the very best they can expect out of me is a traditional ‘Gidday mate’.

    Fair enough, but what’s the big deal with referring to them as a “she” or “her” etc? I consider a number of transgender people my friends and referring to them as if they were female is an infinitesimally small price to pay in return for their friendship and it in no way reduces my ability to comprehend the biological reality of their situation. In actual fact it feels more natural to refer to them as females as their personality is more reflective of femininity than masculinity.

    It’s just about being nice and courteous and not making a big fuss over a trivial semantic distinction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. big bruv (13,895 comments) says:

    Weihana

    I accept what you have to say and if that is the way you want to deal with it then knock yourself out.

    However, what you are asking me to do is stand there while the naked emperor parades past and pretend that he is wearing fine clothes. I refuse to bow down to political correctness.

    Note that I did not say I would be rude, nor would I be unfriendly (unless they were rude or unfriendly to me) I simply said that I refuse to play along with their game.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Weihana says:- “It is essential for our mental health that we be able to laugh at ourselves.”

    So I take it you’d have no problem with Maori being portrayed as primitive cannibals in, say, an advert for spit roasting Masport BBQs?

    “Big Enough To Cook A Pakeha eh?” :mrgreen:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. MT_Tinman (3,186 comments) says:

    Weihana, over the years I have known, thanks to my work, many trannys (transgender is a new, bullshit description for weak as piss PC wankers – transexual is honest).

    To a man/woman they have been happy to be referred to as Big Bruv suggests.

    Never once has any of these people demanded female attribution.

    If your friends demand such, dump them, they aren’t genuine, nor are they honest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    MT_Tinman (1,635) Says:
    January 5th, 2012 at 10:31 pm


    Never once has any of these people demanded female attribution.

    If your friends demand such, dump them, they aren’t genuine, nor are they honest.

    To clarify, I have not known anyone to ask, let alone demand, that they be addressed a certain way. I surmise that if a man wants to appear like a female then they may like to be referred to as if they were. I estimate that it means more to them than it does to me so I find no harm in employing a more liberal application of female personal pronouns, the specific form of which is superfluous to communication in most contexts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Scott Chris (3,234) Says:
    January 5th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
    Weihana says:- “It is essential for our mental health that we be able to laugh at ourselves.”

    So I take it you’d have no problem with Maori being portrayed as primitive cannibals in, say, an advert for spit roasting Masport BBQs?

    “Big Enough To Cook A Pakeha eh?”

    That’s big, might buy one. But it depends how the message is presented. The viewer doesn’t want to think the advert intends the message sincerely. If, for the above example, you hired a prominent Maori comedian to do it ironically it would be obvious that it was not to be taken seriously. Consider Billy T James who often made light of negative Maori stereotypes: “Where did I get my bag? I pinched it. Hehehehe”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    I think the Libra ad featuring a man putting maxi-pads all over his body should be pulled because it reinforces negative stereotypes about hetrosexual men who are also happen to be complete wankers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Weihana, I think you’re missing the point. An advert is not satire. It is a representation of a corporate body’s ethos and like it or not, multinationals are authority figures. Like I said to nasska, when one kid takes the piss out of another kid, that’s generally acceptable, but when the teacher does it it is not.

    Had Billy T done the BBQ bit as part of his show, it would have been hilarious, though it might have upset a few oversensitive pakeha. Ironically.

    ps Might pay to cut of the arms, legs and heads and head and boil them separately with some puha, or better still, find yourself a thalidomide victim or just cook a fat kid. Have I breached the bounds of good taste yet? (trick is to cook ‘em slowly to get that good taste eh!) ((Billy chuckle))

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Fletch (6,389 comments) says:

    You proceed from the premise that homosexuality is wrong despite the fact that people with common sense and an ounce of objectivity do not agree with that premise

    Actually Weihana, anyone with even an ounce of common sense can see what the various parts of the body are used for and that a square peg does not go in a round hole (am I being too subtle?). How can anyone not see that? Just put aside your political correctness for a moment – a persons right to do anything they feel like – and look at it purely with your God-given reason.

    I feel that the article I posted above is very much correct and the author is very wise. He pinpoints exactly what these minority groups want and why.

    Your assertion that people with common sense all agree with homosexuality and believe it to be moral is false. Where do you get that from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Duxton (651 comments) says:

    “….this does not mean one can’t be the butt of a joke.”

    I can’t believe that NO-ONE picked up on the word ‘butt’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Fletch,


    Actually Weihana, anyone with even an ounce of common sense can see what the various parts of the body are used for and that a square peg does not go in a round hole (am I being too subtle?).

    Your penis is square? Better get that looked at.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,

    I don’t agree that multinationals are authority figures. They are private organizations which can and should, if they so choose, employ satire to sell their products. As customers we may conclude their message is a negative one but personally I find nothing wrong with satire if it is funny and doesn’t seriously promote a message I think is wrong. But they should be mindful that not all customers would see it the same way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Weihana says:- “I don’t agree that multinationals are authority figures.”

    Unless you are self-employed, isn’t your boss and authority figure? And if you’re a boss, don’t you exercise authority? And don’t you have a bigger boss, and isn’t he accountable to the shareholders?

    A multinational is a hierarchical system with a social responsibility. It is an authority figure.

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    But contrary to what the supreme court reckons, it is NOT a person. That is absurd. (as I’m sure you’re aware)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Scott Chris,


    But contrary to what the supreme court reckons, it is NOT a person. That is absurd. (as I’m sure you’re aware)

    To the extent that corporations wish to exercise rights under the 1st amendment I believe they should be treated as persons. While there are distinct differences between corporations and real people, that is not in my view a good reason to regulate their speech different to a real person. To be powerful and immensely capable of influencing the opinion of other people by persuasion does not constitute harmful speech. I think the right to influence the views of others is at the core of what the 1st amendment is intended to protect and is a defining feature of free expression. To regulate the speech of a corporation is to regulate the individual by extension since the corporation serves as the means by which an association of real people effect their influence on public opinion. To prevent a corporation from influencing public opinion therefore limits the means by which groups of real people may influence public opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Weihana says:- “To prevent a corporation from influencing public opinion therefore limits the means by which groups of real people may influence public opinion.”

    Quite right. As I said earlier in the thread, Libra has every right to be offensive. But you don’t have to personify a corporation in order to give it the right of free speech or to be recognized as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.

    Apart from the absurdity of declaring a corporation to be human, which it isn’t imo, you also grant it all the other rights a real human constitutionally has.

    Such as the 5th amendment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    “But you don’t have to personify a corporation…”

    I would agree with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Scott Chris (6,139 comments) says:

    Ha, touche. But an authority figure doesn’t have to be a person. It can be an institution like the Masons or the Union or a fictional invented being such as God.

    Perhaps we *should* give God the right of free speech. Maybe then he’d say something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote