"Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them"

[Sava]

I think the action is reasonable... I wonder... if the shirt had said "Jews are stupid, throw rocks at them" would people feel the same?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The thing, is a similar "humourous" T-Shirt could not be made in this society about some form of violence against women.

Given the relative frequency of real violence, along with the general disparity in physical strength and propensity for violence and physical aggression, the situation is hardly symmetric enough for a reciprocal t-shirt to carry any similar message with the same degree of humor.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by 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.

It can be done in an instructional way. It's been a while since I've watched any cartoons, but I'm sure of 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.

There's alot more then just looney toons. Lots of cartoons involve violence between human characters.

c) On TV, as opposed to on a t-shirt, worn in public.

And when did T-shirts become more authoritive then Television? T-shirts always have bad jokes on them. It's practically what they're for!

Would you think it's ok to sell t-shirts in Israel saying "Pals/Israeli's are stupid - throw stones at them",

It'd be cool if they could be so light hearted about it.

[The Mad Monk]

Wow.

Sava made a serious, rational post.

I think I'll go lie down.

[Japher]

I think the action is reasonable... I wonder... if the shirt had said "Jews are stupid, throw rocks at them" would people feel the same?

I think this homosexual propoganda to drive women away from men into each others arms...

[Shi Huangdi]

"
Given the relative frequency of real violence, along with the general disparity in physical strength and propensity for violence and physical aggression, the situation is hardly symmetric enough for a reciprocal t-shirt to carry any similar message with the same degree of humor."

Well of course violence against women is wrong and ought to be condemned. But as blackice and others have pointed out, female-on-male domestic violence does occasionaly occur, and is large part supported by the fact that society views female on male violence as acceptable and even funny, whereas male on female violence is not acceptable. This creates situations where the guy is left without options, as the police are often unwilling to help, and if he tries to strike back then he will become the criminal and face severe sanctions.

[Sava]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Wow.

Sava made a serious, rational post.

I think I'll go lie down.

OMFG OMGFD OMFG NO WYA !

[Ben Kenobi]

The thing, is a similar "humourous" T-Shirt could not be made in this society about some form of violence against women.

I agree Shi. If you really believe people should be able to have t-shirts like this, then they should make some for boys.

Given the relative frequency of real violence, along with the general disparity in physical strength and propensity for violence and physical aggression, the situation is hardly symmetric enough for a reciprocal t-shirt to carry any similar message with the same degree of humor.

Among children, MtG? Girls mature faster than boys, so you would have a disparity the other way for a few years, with the girls being bigger than the boys.

[Sprayber]

Damn, there are so many other things to be offended about.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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.

Who said I was telling anyone anything of the kind? As the article stated, it was the acts of a FEW protestors that dictated what others should find offensive in the shirts, and not have access too it, and that's wrong.

Is it now up to chain retail stores to sift through every piece of merchandise and filter out every piece that "might" offend a few people? Who becomes the arbiter in those cases?

I think the action is reasonable... I wonder... if the shirt had said "Jews are stupid, throw rocks at them" would people feel the same?

Context is, of course, everything. Stupid, dopy kids throw rocks at each other because they're stupid dopy kids, and the t-shirts play on that for humor. People that read into as some gender indoctrination or tacit approval of gender violence, are morons.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


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.

You need to take a chill pill -- I was merely defining what I think PC means. I agree with most people in here, in that those who want the t-shirts stopped are in the wrong.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by MrFun


You need to take a chill pill --

I'm intense. Very intense.

[Japher]

I agree with most people in here, in that those who want the t-shirts stopped are in the wrong.

I think freedom of expression is freedom of expression. Yet, if the same were to happen against other ethnic or sexual groups there would be a huge uproar, but then it too should be acceptable. Personally, I would never wear anything advocating violence towards one group...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Among children, MtG? Girls mature faster than boys, so you would have a disparity the other way for a few years, with the girls being bigger than the boys.

I suppose if you had six to nine year olds in total isolation from other age groups, girls would be able to hold their own. Real violence at that age is pretty rare, and pretty minimal. Unfortunately, reality is that attitudes and a sense of right and wrong are formed young, then we go on to a world where 90% of their lifespans, most males are physically capable of dominating most females, and for the loser who can't hold his physically in a straight up confrontation, there's always rope and weaponry.

We're not that far days when the "she asked for it" mentality prevailed, and rape, domestic violence and stalking stats show that there is far too much violence against women on an ongoing basis for the subject to be considered in the same way (whether humor material or seriously) as the reverse.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Japher


I think freedom of expression is freedom of expression. Yet, if the same were to happen against other ethnic or sexual groups there would be a huge uproar, but then it too should be acceptable. Personally, I would never wear anything advocating violence towards one group...

advocating violence is not protected speech... that's why you can't threaten someone with murder or violence.