"Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them"

[Jac de Molay]

Re: Re: "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them"

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What does this have to do with so-called political correctness?

Because the thin-skinned sensibilities of a select few ,who think it's some junior domestic violence campaign, are allowed to prevail over a lot of people who think it's funny in it's own quirky way. They're reading way too much into it, and stifling expression because it offends their paper-thin sensibilities.

Case in point:

precisely, Shi. It seems like some weird stupid gender war indoctrination from young age, esp. since it's a line for girls

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Drogue

By a 5 year old? Or a 10 year old? Remember these t-shirts are aimed at children:

Deffinately. Kids aren't nearly as uptight and serious as adults can be. I'd be more worried if it was targeted to a 'mature' crowd.


EDIT: But I think the more likely age group is 10-14, anyways.

5 year olds? Probably can't even read, anyways.

[chequita guevara]

And that's political correctness how? In the typical ideology ascribed to "PC," volence and derrogatory comments about boys would be okay, since boys are males, and males are the oppressors. PC is almost universally described as a left-wing ideology, and yet it seems that people across the board, politically, find this distasteful.

[MrFun]

I don't think political correctness is exclusive to one political group of people anymore, Chegitz -- even if it originated with left wingers.

For instance, conservatives are offended with flag burning -- I see that as being PC.

[The diplomat]

when I saw the thread title, I thought you were going to talk about the stampede at Mecca over the weekend.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And that's political correctness how? In the typical ideology ascribed to "PC," volence and derrogatory comments about boys would be okay, since boys are males, and males are the oppressors. PC is almost universally described as a left-wing ideology, and yet it seems that people across the board, politically, find this distasteful.

PC, regardless of ideology, seeks to neutralize statements or expressions that are deemed stereotypical or offensive to the select few, and it cuts both ways. Another good example of this are, say, university Writing manuals for students that attempt to influence all essay writing to exclude gender or racial descriptions that might possibly be deemed offensive. I also consider this case an apt example.

guess in this case, there's a group of people who believe that they have the right to be free from being offended. That's the jist of political correctness, isn't it?

And what gives them the right to take away others' enjoyment of the humor they find in the shirts? Let the free market make these decisions- If they don't sell, pull 'em. I don't need some sanctimonius pokenose dictating what products I should/n't be exposed in the open marketplace.

[lord of the mark]

POLITical corrEctness


POLITE.


When I was growing up, we didnt have political correctness. It was however, considered desirable by SOME to be polite, and not rude. In fact rudeness was JUSTIFIED on political grounds - 'we've gotta curse, cause whats happening in Viet Nam is a much bigger obscenity' Well the war ended, and the cursing and rudeness remained. Now when theres rudeness, the right complains about "political correctness"

why cant people just treat each other with decency.

You dont suggest throwing rocks at people cause of their gender. Not even in jest. And you dont sell shirts like that to kids. And whoever does, deserves public shaming.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay

I don't need some sanctimonius pokenose dictating what products I should/n't be exposed in the open marketplace.

I dont need some santimonious Libertarian telling me what i should or shouldnt protest against, who i should or shouldnt boycott, who i should or shouldnt shame.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

You dont suggest throwing rocks at people cause of their gender. Not even in jest. And you dont sell shirts like that to kids. And whoever does, deserves public shaming.

Can I have the 12 O'clock spot at the stocks and pillories?

[chequita guevara]

LotM

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Osweld
Deffinately. Kids aren't nearly as uptight and serious as adults can be. I'd be more worried if it was targeted to a 'mature' crowd.

You've never seen little children, on being told by another child to throw sand in someones eye, go and do it? They don't understand the consequences of such actions. If that was read by a 5-10 year old, espeically if warn by a peer, I could quite easily imagine them going and doing it.

Originally posted by Osweld
EDIT: But I think the more likely age group is 10-14, anyways.

5 year olds? Probably can't even read, anyways.

Most 5 years olds over here can read basic things. Junior over hear is roughly 5-12 (between infant and teenager), I presumed it's the same there.

[Az]

indeed.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Drogue

You've never seen little children, on being told by another child to throw sand in someones eye, go and do it? They don't understand the consequences of such actions. If that was read by a 5-10 year old, espeically if warn by a peer, I could quite easily imagine them going and doing it.

But it isn't telling them to throw stones at them, it's a joke. And it's presented that way.


I guess we better ban saturday morning cartoons, too. We can't have them telling kids to shoot each other and drop anvils on people, ect...

[Drogue]

Osweld: It is telling them to throw stones. Even if it's meant as a joke, I don't give 5-10 year olds the credit of being able to see that. Not the vast majority at least.

A cartoon character dropping an anvil on someone's head is:
a) Not an instruction. It's just showing it as something funny, not telling kids to go and do it.
b) Not violent acts on humans. It's easier to decern it as a joke when it's a cat and a mouse, or a roadrunner, as opposed to a human.
c) On TV, as opposed to on a t-shirt, worn in public.

That is why I think the "Boys are Stupid" or the "Stupid Factory" one's are fine. However saying "Throw Stones At Them" is not. In the UK, if a child actually did throw a stone after seeing that, the makers could be charged with Incitement of Violence. They told a kid to throw stones at someone. Add to that the sexual discrimination, whereby they are told to throw stones at boys, and I can understand why people have a problem with it.

Would you think it's ok to sell t-shirts in Israel saying "Jews are stupid - throw stones at them", and then be annoyed that people protest about it. Sure, the situation isn't as volatile, but it's selling them to young children, who are impressionable and haven't got the maturity to know the difference between joke and statement. We have banned advertisments designed to attract children, because they can be easily manipulated. I think these t-shirts go even further.

[Drogue]

I just want to clarify, I'm not saying I agree with banning them, although I wouldn't be too aggreived if it happened. However I can understand why people are protesting against them, and I agree with the stores position of removing them. The stores will always bow to public pressure, as their sales depend on it, and so when the public protests, they can choose to stop stocking them.