Starbucks encourages baristas to engage customers in racial conversations
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Is it a good idea to encourage baristas to engage in racial conversations with customers
Yes
10%
 10%  [ 3 ]
No
58%
 58%  [ 17 ]
May help improve race relations
6%
 6%  [ 2 ]
Won't help improve race relations
6%
 6%  [ 2 ]
Will results in heated altercations
13%
 13%  [ 4 ]
Other options
3%
 3%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 29

Author Message
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:29 am    Post subject:

Reflexx wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
Sorry, but I don't buy that for a second. I asked the question through the Clinton Administration and never had that level of hatred. And how the hell do you explain "Osama Bin Obama?"

There have been many POTUS who have been disliked by large segments of the population and the opposition party. Hell, the Repubs impeached Clinton. But when was the last time a sitting congressman called the POTUS a liar in congress, or a sitting Gov. Shook his/her finger in the face of a POTUS and then when called out said that he/she felt "Threatened?"

Your attempt to paint the side that is blame the victim is IMO, frankly pathetic and completely wrong.But hey, if you want to continue to roll with the reason we as a nation can't talk about race is that the victims of 400 years of discrimination ranging to the most brutal form of Slavery the World has ever known, to Jim Crow, to completely ubiquitious institutionalized racism make it impossible to do so, then, keep rollin' Jack. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this as we do on virtually everything that has been discussed on these boards.


I think you misread what I wrote. I'm saying that we collectively, on all sides (and I'm a person of color, FWIW), have made it darn near impossible to have a honest and frank conversation. And this isn't just as it relates to race, but also gender, sexual orientation, etc.

I'll give you an example of a thread you were involved in. About a week ago, a black, mentally ill man was shot and killed by police. Some discussions on this board ensued and some people tried to provide some context, to understand the full story and someone had mentioned that the suspect was holding a screwdriver, the police were called because of violent threats were reported and the suspect was allegedly mentally ill.

Your response? "So by this reasoning, mental illness is grounds for termination of life."

That's exactly what I'm talking about. That's where we've come to. That's not having an open conversation about the merits of the case
. That's not being open to a discussion. So that's what I mean.

We, as a collective group of people in this country, are no longer capable of having reasonable discourse whenever it involves race, gender, orientation, etc. We've become far too accusatory. Maybe it's the interwebs, I dunno.


Ok, I see where you're coming from now. But I still disagree. In your mind, my question was an end of discourse, in my mind, it was an argument that could have had a counter that I hadn't considered. I'm always open to counters, moreso the less expertise I have in the subject matter, for example see the MMA thread on how RR would do against a certain profile man in a fight. I know something of the field, but my opinion was altered by vids showing leg locks, working on leg locks and discussing the scenario with my instructor.

I admit I am a bit more dogmatic on this particular social issue because I have easily the background over the years of a pHD on the subject matter and have recently helped my best friend collate and organize his thesis on Professor Derek Bell's contention that racism is a permanent part of the American landscape. But I digress.

In my honest opinion, the reason we can't have honest dialogue about the black white racial issue is that we, and I mean blacks and whites, won't fess up to fundamental assumptions we generally hold. Whites won't fess up to a gut feeling, by and large, that while blacks are American, they aren't AS American as whites, and blacks won't fess up to a knowledge of this feeling and by and large harbor a certain degree of hatred towards whites because of it. Am I right? I don't know. It certainly explains everything I've seen and experienced in this society, but, if a better explanation comes forth, I'll give it real consideration.

But I think you speak as if there was at some point in time when we could have honest dialogue about race in America and I don't think that time has ever existed. Not even close.


You brought up an interesting thing that I had never considered because I am neither black or white. I have no idea about if some whites see blacks as less American. Normally, I see "American" as black and white.

It's normally the others... the Latinos, Asians, Middle Eastern, etc.. and yes... even American Indians, that are seen as less American.



Which makes perfect sense as the black/white dynamic is a unique one in this Nation of ours. Consider this. If a liberal white and a conservative white are arguing about America. They argue. They view themselves as equally American and one MIGHT say, well "America, love it or leave it." But change that white liberal to a black American and you get "If you don't like it, go back to Africa," or "I don't know why you're making such a big deal about it, your people are lucky we took you out of Africa and brought you here."

AS showed just a little of the data that proves how Americans view blacks and whites as fundamentally different and I believe it extends to that internalized, sometimes, sometimes not, POV about degrees of "American."
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:46 pm    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

The CEO of Barilla (the pasta company) was labeled a bigot because he said he would not consider featuring a gay family in their advertising and LGBT groups were calling for a boycott of their product. That is what we do now. We hold people hostage. Now you have to spend advertising dollars and target gay communities. Oh, and Mexican communities. And Asians too. And blacks, whites, the handicapped, men, women, veterans and non-veterans, militaries and civilians, old, young, and in between. Because if you don't, then you are a bigot. And what's funny is that if they just didn't say anything, if they just kept advertising traditional families, this wouldn't have been an issue. So lesson learned? Keep your mouth shut. Don't talk about it. Talking about it no longer serves any real benefit unless you just say what you're supposed to say.


Stating that your mind is closed to the idea of marketing towards a certain audience isn't a positive thing. What benefit is to be had?


It may not be positive. And it certainly may not be smart. But that doesn't make it rooted in deep hate either. It's just a strategic choice.

What's wrong with not wanting to? It's their business, they can target whoever they like, can't they?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:24 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

The CEO of Barilla (the pasta company) was labeled a bigot because he said he would not consider featuring a gay family in their advertising and LGBT groups were calling for a boycott of their product. That is what we do now. We hold people hostage. Now you have to spend advertising dollars and target gay communities. Oh, and Mexican communities. And Asians too. And blacks, whites, the handicapped, men, women, veterans and non-veterans, militaries and civilians, old, young, and in between. Because if you don't, then you are a bigot. And what's funny is that if they just didn't say anything, if they just kept advertising traditional families, this wouldn't have been an issue. So lesson learned? Keep your mouth shut. Don't talk about it. Talking about it no longer serves any real benefit unless you just say what you're supposed to say.


Stating that your mind is closed to the idea of marketing towards a certain audience isn't a positive thing. What benefit is to be had?


It may not be positive. And it certainly may not be smart. But that doesn't make it rooted in deep hate either. It's just a strategic choice.

What's wrong with not wanting to? It's their business, they can target whoever they like, can't they?


Absolutely they can. And those who disagree with their stance are free to build support around not shopping there.

But it doesn't have to be rooted in hatred for it to be narrow-minded. Making that your business model, thus alienating potential customers, doesn't seem like it's rooted in economics. What do you think it's rooted in?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:51 pm    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

The CEO of Barilla (the pasta company) was labeled a bigot because he said he would not consider featuring a gay family in their advertising and LGBT groups were calling for a boycott of their product. That is what we do now. We hold people hostage. Now you have to spend advertising dollars and target gay communities. Oh, and Mexican communities. And Asians too. And blacks, whites, the handicapped, men, women, veterans and non-veterans, militaries and civilians, old, young, and in between. Because if you don't, then you are a bigot. And what's funny is that if they just didn't say anything, if they just kept advertising traditional families, this wouldn't have been an issue. So lesson learned? Keep your mouth shut. Don't talk about it. Talking about it no longer serves any real benefit unless you just say what you're supposed to say.


Stating that your mind is closed to the idea of marketing towards a certain audience isn't a positive thing. What benefit is to be had?


It may not be positive. And it certainly may not be smart. But that doesn't make it rooted in deep hate either. It's just a strategic choice.

What's wrong with not wanting to? It's their business, they can target whoever they like, can't they?


Absolutely they can. And those who disagree with their stance are free to build support around not shopping there.

But it doesn't have to be rooted in hatred for it to be narrow-minded. Making that your business model, thus alienating potential customers, doesn't seem like it's rooted in economics. What do you think it's rooted in?


Why alienating? See that's what I don't get. Just because you don't specifically market to me, means I am alienated?

I would argue that being targeted is rooted in economics. The economics don't favor marketing lipstick to adult men even if some of them do wear lipstick.

I already told you what it is rooted in. It's rooted in strategy. It makes sense from an efficiency perspective to target traditional families since there are more of them. And from a positioning perspective, it makes sense to be highly targeted as opposed to everything to everyone. The latter is how you lose in business.

Also, your assertion that it is narrow minded is not realistic (and again, proof that reasonable conversations on this topic cannot be had). It just wouldn't make financial sense for pampers to market to adult transgendered communities. It's not fair to say Big O Tires is narrow minded when it comes to the disabled because they've never highlighted one in their ads.

This is where we've come now. This is why people can't talk. You can't even talk about the group of people you want to target in a marketing campaign unless the group you are targeting is all human beings all together at once.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:47 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

The CEO of Barilla (the pasta company) was labeled a bigot because he said he would not consider featuring a gay family in their advertising and LGBT groups were calling for a boycott of their product. That is what we do now. We hold people hostage. Now you have to spend advertising dollars and target gay communities. Oh, and Mexican communities. And Asians too. And blacks, whites, the handicapped, men, women, veterans and non-veterans, militaries and civilians, old, young, and in between. Because if you don't, then you are a bigot. And what's funny is that if they just didn't say anything, if they just kept advertising traditional families, this wouldn't have been an issue. So lesson learned? Keep your mouth shut. Don't talk about it. Talking about it no longer serves any real benefit unless you just say what you're supposed to say.


Stating that your mind is closed to the idea of marketing towards a certain audience isn't a positive thing. What benefit is to be had?


It may not be positive. And it certainly may not be smart. But that doesn't make it rooted in deep hate either. It's just a strategic choice.

What's wrong with not wanting to? It's their business, they can target whoever they like, can't they?


Absolutely they can. And those who disagree with their stance are free to build support around not shopping there.

But it doesn't have to be rooted in hatred for it to be narrow-minded. Making that your business model, thus alienating potential customers, doesn't seem like it's rooted in economics. What do you think it's rooted in?


Why alienating? See that's what I don't get. Just because you don't specifically market to me, means I am alienated?

I would argue that being targeted is rooted in economics. The economics don't favor marketing lipstick to adult men even if some of them do wear lipstick.

I already told you what it is rooted in. It's rooted in strategy. It makes sense from an efficiency perspective to target traditional families since there are more of them. And from a positioning perspective, it makes sense to be highly targeted as opposed to everything to everyone. The latter is how you lose in business.

Also, your assertion that it is narrow minded is not realistic (and again, proof that reasonable conversations on this topic cannot be had). It just wouldn't make financial sense for pampers to market to adult transgendered communities. It's not fair to say Big O Tires is narrow minded when it comes to the disabled because they've never highlighted one in their ads.

This is where we've come now. This is why people can't talk. You can't even talk about the group of people you want to target in a marketing campaign unless the group you are targeting is all human beings all together at once.


We're talking about aren't we? Stop saying we can't talk about it if we're actively doing so.

I'm not familiar with Barilla pastas marketing to begin with, but to emphatically state they will not market toward gays is alienating. As you said, had they not made the statement, it wouldn't even be an issue. But, they did make the statement. That's where the alienation comes into play.

Plus you're wrong about marketing strategies in this day and age; it is absolutely targeted towards very specific, niche individuals and groups. That's how Google makes money in fact. Same with Amazon.

Recall the Budweiser ad that ran during this year's Super Bowl. It basically made fun of any person who likes craft beer and marketed to the lowest common denominator; binge-drinking light beer consumers. It was highly panned for it's strategy, by many media outlets and really just doubled-down on their idea that beer doesn't need to taste good, but just get you drunk.

Look, I too roll my eyes at most of these groups that (bleep) about everything, instead of just simply not supporting it. But, many times they're just reacting to some company who tried to make a name for themselves as well, like Chick-fil-a or Hobby Lobby or this pasta company. So if the company wants to be vocal about it, I have no problem with the opposing side being vocal as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67317
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:01 pm    Post subject:

Marketing does target. It takes chances in doing so.

e.g. Mixed couple, age groups, ethnics. I'm of a mind, before long gays will be targeted.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:18 pm    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

The CEO of Barilla (the pasta company) was labeled a bigot because he said he would not consider featuring a gay family in their advertising and LGBT groups were calling for a boycott of their product. That is what we do now. We hold people hostage. Now you have to spend advertising dollars and target gay communities. Oh, and Mexican communities. And Asians too. And blacks, whites, the handicapped, men, women, veterans and non-veterans, militaries and civilians, old, young, and in between. Because if you don't, then you are a bigot. And what's funny is that if they just didn't say anything, if they just kept advertising traditional families, this wouldn't have been an issue. So lesson learned? Keep your mouth shut. Don't talk about it. Talking about it no longer serves any real benefit unless you just say what you're supposed to say.


Stating that your mind is closed to the idea of marketing towards a certain audience isn't a positive thing. What benefit is to be had?


It may not be positive. And it certainly may not be smart. But that doesn't make it rooted in deep hate either. It's just a strategic choice.

What's wrong with not wanting to? It's their business, they can target whoever they like, can't they?


Absolutely they can. And those who disagree with their stance are free to build support around not shopping there.

But it doesn't have to be rooted in hatred for it to be narrow-minded. Making that your business model, thus alienating potential customers, doesn't seem like it's rooted in economics. What do you think it's rooted in?


Why alienating? See that's what I don't get. Just because you don't specifically market to me, means I am alienated?

I would argue that being targeted is rooted in economics. The economics don't favor marketing lipstick to adult men even if some of them do wear lipstick.

I already told you what it is rooted in. It's rooted in strategy. It makes sense from an efficiency perspective to target traditional families since there are more of them. And from a positioning perspective, it makes sense to be highly targeted as opposed to everything to everyone. The latter is how you lose in business.

Also, your assertion that it is narrow minded is not realistic (and again, proof that reasonable conversations on this topic cannot be had). It just wouldn't make financial sense for pampers to market to adult transgendered communities. It's not fair to say Big O Tires is narrow minded when it comes to the disabled because they've never highlighted one in their ads.

This is where we've come now. This is why people can't talk. You can't even talk about the group of people you want to target in a marketing campaign unless the group you are targeting is all human beings all together at once.


We're talking about aren't we? Stop saying we can't talk about it if we're actively doing so.

I'm not familiar with Barilla pastas marketing to begin with, but to emphatically state they will not market toward gays is alienating. As you said, had they not made the statement, it wouldn't even be an issue. But, they did make the statement. That's where the alienation comes into play.

Plus you're wrong about marketing strategies in this day and age; it is absolutely targeted towards very specific, niche individuals and groups. That's how Google makes money in fact. Same with Amazon.

Recall the Budweiser ad that ran during this year's Super Bowl. It basically made fun of any person who likes craft beer and marketed to the lowest common denominator; binge-drinking light beer consumers. It was highly panned for it's strategy, by many media outlets and really just doubled-down on their idea that beer doesn't need to taste good, but just get you drunk.

Look, I too roll my eyes at most of these groups that (bleep) about everything, instead of just simply not supporting it. But, many times they're just reacting to some company who tried to make a name for themselves as well, like Chick-fil-a or Hobby Lobby or this pasta company. So if the company wants to be vocal about it, I have no problem with the opposing side being vocal as well.


What are you talking about ... Wrong about marketing strategies? I've been in marketing for 15 years. And we're saying the same thing. In fact I even said that when you are not targeted, that is how you lose. Marketing is highly targeted and there is nothing wrong with that.

Why should a company have to market to every single segment of the population in order to avoid alienating people?

People need to get over it. They're seriously upset that a company won't spend millions of dollars to run an ad campaign specifically aimed at their community? Ridic. Of the highest order.

The sensitivity levels are way too high. That's why we can't have an open and frank discussion. we can't even make stuff that appeals to a segment because the other segments get alienated. We really need to sack up as a society.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:26 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

The CEO of Barilla (the pasta company) was labeled a bigot because he said he would not consider featuring a gay family in their advertising and LGBT groups were calling for a boycott of their product. That is what we do now. We hold people hostage. Now you have to spend advertising dollars and target gay communities. Oh, and Mexican communities. And Asians too. And blacks, whites, the handicapped, men, women, veterans and non-veterans, militaries and civilians, old, young, and in between. Because if you don't, then you are a bigot. And what's funny is that if they just didn't say anything, if they just kept advertising traditional families, this wouldn't have been an issue. So lesson learned? Keep your mouth shut. Don't talk about it. Talking about it no longer serves any real benefit unless you just say what you're supposed to say.


Stating that your mind is closed to the idea of marketing towards a certain audience isn't a positive thing. What benefit is to be had?


It may not be positive. And it certainly may not be smart. But that doesn't make it rooted in deep hate either. It's just a strategic choice.

What's wrong with not wanting to? It's their business, they can target whoever they like, can't they?


Absolutely they can. And those who disagree with their stance are free to build support around not shopping there.

But it doesn't have to be rooted in hatred for it to be narrow-minded. Making that your business model, thus alienating potential customers, doesn't seem like it's rooted in economics. What do you think it's rooted in?


Why alienating? See that's what I don't get. Just because you don't specifically market to me, means I am alienated?

I would argue that being targeted is rooted in economics. The economics don't favor marketing lipstick to adult men even if some of them do wear lipstick.

I already told you what it is rooted in. It's rooted in strategy. It makes sense from an efficiency perspective to target traditional families since there are more of them. And from a positioning perspective, it makes sense to be highly targeted as opposed to everything to everyone. The latter is how you lose in business.

Also, your assertion that it is narrow minded is not realistic (and again, proof that reasonable conversations on this topic cannot be had). It just wouldn't make financial sense for pampers to market to adult transgendered communities. It's not fair to say Big O Tires is narrow minded when it comes to the disabled because they've never highlighted one in their ads.

This is where we've come now. This is why people can't talk. You can't even talk about the group of people you want to target in a marketing campaign unless the group you are targeting is all human beings all together at once.


We're talking about aren't we? Stop saying we can't talk about it if we're actively doing so.

I'm not familiar with Barilla pastas marketing to begin with, but to emphatically state they will not market toward gays is alienating. As you said, had they not made the statement, it wouldn't even be an issue. But, they did make the statement. That's where the alienation comes into play.

Plus you're wrong about marketing strategies in this day and age; it is absolutely targeted towards very specific, niche individuals and groups. That's how Google makes money in fact. Same with Amazon.

Recall the Budweiser ad that ran during this year's Super Bowl. It basically made fun of any person who likes craft beer and marketed to the lowest common denominator; binge-drinking light beer consumers. It was highly panned for it's strategy, by many media outlets and really just doubled-down on their idea that beer doesn't need to taste good, but just get you drunk.

Look, I too roll my eyes at most of these groups that (bleep) about everything, instead of just simply not supporting it. But, many times they're just reacting to some company who tried to make a name for themselves as well, like Chick-fil-a or Hobby Lobby or this pasta company. So if the company wants to be vocal about it, I have no problem with the opposing side being vocal as well.


What are you talking about ... Wrong about marketing strategies? I've been in marketing for 15 years. And we're saying the same thing. In fact I even said that when you are not targeted, that is how you lose. Marketing is highly targeted and there is nothing wrong with that.

Why should a company have to market to every single segment of the population in order to avoid alienating people?

People need to get over it. They're seriously upset that a company won't spend millions of dollars to run an ad campaign specifically aimed at their community? Ridic. Of the highest order.

The sensitivity levels are way too high. That's why we can't have an open and frank discussion. we can't even make stuff that appeals to a segment because the other segments get alienated. We really need to sack up as a society.



Dude, you're seriously on the wrong side of history.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:40 am    Post subject:

Maybe I'm just not communicating my point well. I'm trying to say that right now, we're just too quick to pull the accusation trigger IMO. What's happening right now is that every single negative interaction between a white person and a black person is immediately assumed born from racism. It's always immediately white against black (or vice versa). Everything is so polarized. You're either with us or against us. You either love us or you hate us.

This doesn't bridge gaps, it widens them. And as I said before, this isn't just happening with issues of race, it's everything. Somehow this has become how we handle things. I can't criticize Kobe without being labeled a hater with an agenda. It's kind of made me find Laker fans annoying a little bit, unable to see the forest for the trees.

Perhaps it's the rise in use of the Internet that has coincided with this. Don't know. Not postulating on that right now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:37 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:


What are you talking about ... Wrong about marketing strategies? I've been in marketing for 15 years. And we're saying the same thing. In fact I even said that when you are not targeted, that is how you lose. Marketing is highly targeted and there is nothing wrong with that.

Why should a company have to market to every single segment of the population in order to avoid alienating people?

People need to get over it. They're seriously upset that a company won't spend millions of dollars to run an ad campaign specifically aimed at their community? Ridic. Of the highest order.

The sensitivity levels are way too high. That's why we can't have an open and frank discussion. we can't even make stuff that appeals to a segment because the other segments get alienated. We really need to sack up as a society.


It depends on the product I guess. For a pasta brand to state they would never market to gay people is pretty ridiculous. What does pasta have to do with heterosexuality? Why make it public knowledge that you don't want gays buying your product unless you want to alienate them?

It's not like gays were demanding a pasta company that markets towards them. The public, whether gay or straight, doesn't inherently think a pasta company only wants to heterosexuals to buy their pasta. But, when they emphatically say that, then they are doing so for a reason. What reason do you think that would be?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:46 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Maybe I'm just not communicating my point well. I'm trying to say that right now, we're just too quick to pull the accusation trigger IMO. What's happening right now is that every single negative interaction between a white person and a black person is immediately assumed born from racism. It's always immediately white against black (or vice versa). Everything is so polarized. You're either with us or against us. You either love us or you hate us.

This doesn't bridge gaps, it widens them. And as I said before, this isn't just happening with issues of race, it's everything. Somehow this has become how we handle things. I can't criticize Kobe without being labeled a hater with an agenda. It's kind of made me find Laker fans annoying a little bit, unable to see the forest for the trees.

Perhaps it's the rise in use of the Internet that has coincided with this. Don't know. Not postulating on that right now.



Well, sure, sometimes we are. But it's not as if we live in an empty bubble. There are so many things that go on today that are indisputably discrimination, bigotry etc that every interaction is colored by them. You don't think any black resident of the city of Ferguson has reason to consider the possibility or even probability of racial bias whenever there is a negative interaction with the Ferguson PD? I mean, the DOJ report was not equivical in it's determination of widespread, systemic racial discrimination by the CJS against blacks in that city. So why should a black in that situation NOT accuse? It would make no sense NOT to.


As to the marketing issue, the others have pointed out where you're just flat out wrong. Ultimately, the very same tolerance you say you seek is undermined by some CEO saying that he won't use a member of the GLBTG community in an advertisement. Or are you saying what you really want is for people to actively discriminate and yet not be called out on it?
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:25 pm    Post subject:

KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Maybe I'm just not communicating my point well. I'm trying to say that right now, we're just too quick to pull the accusation trigger IMO. What's happening right now is that every single negative interaction between a white person and a black person is immediately assumed born from racism. It's always immediately white against black (or vice versa). Everything is so polarized. You're either with us or against us. You either love us or you hate us.

This doesn't bridge gaps, it widens them. And as I said before, this isn't just happening with issues of race, it's everything. Somehow this has become how we handle things. I can't criticize Kobe without being labeled a hater with an agenda. It's kind of made me find Laker fans annoying a little bit, unable to see the forest for the trees.

Perhaps it's the rise in use of the Internet that has coincided with this. Don't know. Not postulating on that right now.



Well, sure, sometimes we are. But it's not as if we live in an empty bubble. There are so many things that go on today that are indisputably discrimination, bigotry etc that every interaction is colored by them. You don't think any black resident of the city of Ferguson has reason to consider the possibility or even probability of racial bias whenever there is a negative interaction with the Ferguson PD? I mean, the DOJ report was not equivical in it's determination of widespread, systemic racial discrimination by the CJS against blacks in that city. So why should a black in that situation NOT accuse? It would make no sense NOT to.

As to the marketing issue, the others have pointed out where you're just flat out wrong. Ultimately, the very same tolerance you say you seek is undermined by some CEO saying that he won't use a member of the GLBTG community in an advertisement. Or are you saying what you really want is for people to actively discriminate and yet not be called out on it?


Some discrimination is acceptable. BET is acceptable discrimination for instance. They don't cater to whites. They don't advertise to asians.

In fact, they spend more money marketing to the black community than they do the LGBT community (if any to the latter at all).

I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Apparently you do?

As I said, that's just where we are right now. A wheelchair company can't advertise primarily to the handicapped without the non-handicapped getting "alienated". Let's sack up a bit, all of us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:38 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Maybe I'm just not communicating my point well. I'm trying to say that right now, we're just too quick to pull the accusation trigger IMO. What's happening right now is that every single negative interaction between a white person and a black person is immediately assumed born from racism. It's always immediately white against black (or vice versa). Everything is so polarized. You're either with us or against us. You either love us or you hate us.

This doesn't bridge gaps, it widens them. And as I said before, this isn't just happening with issues of race, it's everything. Somehow this has become how we handle things. I can't criticize Kobe without being labeled a hater with an agenda. It's kind of made me find Laker fans annoying a little bit, unable to see the forest for the trees.

Perhaps it's the rise in use of the Internet that has coincided with this. Don't know. Not postulating on that right now.



Well, sure, sometimes we are. But it's not as if we live in an empty bubble. There are so many things that go on today that are indisputably discrimination, bigotry etc that every interaction is colored by them. You don't think any black resident of the city of Ferguson has reason to consider the possibility or even probability of racial bias whenever there is a negative interaction with the Ferguson PD? I mean, the DOJ report was not equivical in it's determination of widespread, systemic racial discrimination by the CJS against blacks in that city. So why should a black in that situation NOT accuse? It would make no sense NOT to.

As to the marketing issue, the others have pointed out where you're just flat out wrong. Ultimately, the very same tolerance you say you seek is undermined by some CEO saying that he won't use a member of the GLBTG community in an advertisement. Or are you saying what you really want is for people to actively discriminate and yet not be called out on it?


Some discrimination is acceptable. BET is acceptable discrimination for instance. They don't cater to whites. They don't advertise to asians.

In fact, they spend more money marketing to the black community than they do the LGBT community (if any to the latter at all).

I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Apparently you do?

As I said, that's just where we are right now. A wheelchair company can't advertise primarily to the handicapped without the non-handicapped getting "alienated". Let's sack up a bit, all of us.


Networks like BET broadcast content that acquires certain demographical viewership. Marketing seeks to target that demography, not to define it. I think you're misunderstanding the sequence.

Nevertheless, your example is akin to suggesting that someone is trying to argue that The French Laundry engages in discriminatory practices because they don't serve baba ghanoush (or baba ghanouj ... whatever). As always, I might be wrong, but I'm not seeing that as part of anyone's argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:04 pm    Post subject:

the association wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
KobeBryantCliffordBrown wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Maybe I'm just not communicating my point well. I'm trying to say that right now, we're just too quick to pull the accusation trigger IMO. What's happening right now is that every single negative interaction between a white person and a black person is immediately assumed born from racism. It's always immediately white against black (or vice versa). Everything is so polarized. You're either with us or against us. You either love us or you hate us.

This doesn't bridge gaps, it widens them. And as I said before, this isn't just happening with issues of race, it's everything. Somehow this has become how we handle things. I can't criticize Kobe without being labeled a hater with an agenda. It's kind of made me find Laker fans annoying a little bit, unable to see the forest for the trees.

Perhaps it's the rise in use of the Internet that has coincided with this. Don't know. Not postulating on that right now.



Well, sure, sometimes we are. But it's not as if we live in an empty bubble. There are so many things that go on today that are indisputably discrimination, bigotry etc that every interaction is colored by them. You don't think any black resident of the city of Ferguson has reason to consider the possibility or even probability of racial bias whenever there is a negative interaction with the Ferguson PD? I mean, the DOJ report was not equivical in it's determination of widespread, systemic racial discrimination by the CJS against blacks in that city. So why should a black in that situation NOT accuse? It would make no sense NOT to.

As to the marketing issue, the others have pointed out where you're just flat out wrong. Ultimately, the very same tolerance you say you seek is undermined by some CEO saying that he won't use a member of the GLBTG community in an advertisement. Or are you saying what you really want is for people to actively discriminate and yet not be called out on it?


Some discrimination is acceptable. BET is acceptable discrimination for instance. They don't cater to whites. They don't advertise to asians.

In fact, they spend more money marketing to the black community than they do the LGBT community (if any to the latter at all).

I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Apparently you do?

As I said, that's just where we are right now. A wheelchair company can't advertise primarily to the handicapped without the non-handicapped getting "alienated". Let's sack up a bit, all of us.


Networks like BET broadcast content that acquires certain demographical viewership. Marketing seeks to target that demography, not to define it. I think you're misunderstanding the sequence.

Nevertheless, your example is akin to suggesting that someone is trying to argue that The French Laundry engages in discriminatory practices because they don't serve baba ghanoush (or baba ghanouj ... whatever). As always, I might be wrong, but I'm not seeing that as part of anyone's argument.


It was an extreme example to prove a point. The point being, why do companies have to advertise to every single potential segment out there to avoid alienating anyone? Companies can advertise to whoever they like.

I just don't understand the mentality of being upset because a pasta company (or whatever) chooses not to advertise to a particular segment.

That feeling of alienation, as silly as it is, is why we can't talk about stuff. People get offended too quickly these days and are constantly on the defensive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:46 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

It was an extreme example to prove a point. The point being, why do companies have to advertise to every single potential segment out there to avoid alienating anyone? Companies can advertise to whoever they like.

I just don't understand the mentality of being upset because a pasta company (or whatever) chooses not to advertise to a particular segment.

That feeling of alienation, as silly as it is, is why we can't talk about stuff. People get offended too quickly these days and are constantly on the defensive.


I think you're not seeing the difference in intentions here. Like I mentioned previously, there weren't "pro-gay" groups demanding that a pasta company market towards them. Nobody was asking them to do so. But, when they specifically state they would absolutely not run any advertising featuring gay people, they are indeed making a statement that's meant to alienate. All done without prompting from the LGBT.

So, you have to ask, why would they make that statement if nobody was even asking them to do so?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:02 pm    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

It was an extreme example to prove a point. The point being, why do companies have to advertise to every single potential segment out there to avoid alienating anyone? Companies can advertise to whoever they like.

I just don't understand the mentality of being upset because a pasta company (or whatever) chooses not to advertise to a particular segment.

That feeling of alienation, as silly as it is, is why we can't talk about stuff. People get offended too quickly these days and are constantly on the defensive.


I think you're not seeing the difference in intentions here. Like I mentioned previously, there weren't "pro-gay" groups demanding that a pasta company market towards them. Nobody was asking them to do so. But, when they specifically state they would absolutely not run any advertising featuring gay people, they are indeed making a statement that's meant to alienate. All done without prompting from the LGBT.

So, you have to ask, why would they make that statement if nobody was even asking them to do so?


So it has nothing to do with the fact they wouldn't advertise to the gay community but just saying it is what is upsetting then.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:23 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

It was an extreme example to prove a point. The point being, why do companies have to advertise to every single potential segment out there to avoid alienating anyone? Companies can advertise to whoever they like.

I just don't understand the mentality of being upset because a pasta company (or whatever) chooses not to advertise to a particular segment.

That feeling of alienation, as silly as it is, is why we can't talk about stuff. People get offended too quickly these days and are constantly on the defensive.


I think you're not seeing the difference in intentions here. Like I mentioned previously, there weren't "pro-gay" groups demanding that a pasta company market towards them. Nobody was asking them to do so. But, when they specifically state they would absolutely not run any advertising featuring gay people, they are indeed making a statement that's meant to alienate. All done without prompting from the LGBT.

So, you have to ask, why would they make that statement if nobody was even asking them to do so?


So it has nothing to do with the fact they wouldn't advertise to the gay community but just saying it is what is upsetting then.


Do you hear the LGBT demanding that 31 Flavor or Olive Garden or Kraft make commercials featuring gay people? Not at all. nor did anyone protest Chick-Fil-A prior to their founders' comments.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:52 pm    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

It was an extreme example to prove a point. The point being, why do companies have to advertise to every single potential segment out there to avoid alienating anyone? Companies can advertise to whoever they like.

I just don't understand the mentality of being upset because a pasta company (or whatever) chooses not to advertise to a particular segment.

That feeling of alienation, as silly as it is, is why we can't talk about stuff. People get offended too quickly these days and are constantly on the defensive.


I think you're not seeing the difference in intentions here. Like I mentioned previously, there weren't "pro-gay" groups demanding that a pasta company market towards them. Nobody was asking them to do so. But, when they specifically state they would absolutely not run any advertising featuring gay people, they are indeed making a statement that's meant to alienate. All done without prompting from the LGBT.

So, you have to ask, why would they make that statement if nobody was even asking them to do so?


So it has nothing to do with the fact they wouldn't advertise to the gay community but just saying it is what is upsetting then.


Do you hear the LGBT demanding that 31 Flavor or Olive Garden or Kraft make commercials featuring gay people? Not at all. nor did anyone protest Chick-Fil-A prior to their founders' comments.


Nope. I only heard a CEO say that he wasn't interested in running advertising featuring a gay family because he wants to focus his brand around the traditional family. He didn't say gays shouldn't buy his pasta or anything like that. He just said he wanted to position his brand around the traditional mother. So it's ok to do that but not say it, or it's not ok to do that?

An over focus and overreaction on the minutiae is widening the gap, not closing it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:49 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

It was an extreme example to prove a point. The point being, why do companies have to advertise to every single potential segment out there to avoid alienating anyone? Companies can advertise to whoever they like.

I just don't understand the mentality of being upset because a pasta company (or whatever) chooses not to advertise to a particular segment.

That feeling of alienation, as silly as it is, is why we can't talk about stuff. People get offended too quickly these days and are constantly on the defensive.


I think you're not seeing the difference in intentions here. Like I mentioned previously, there weren't "pro-gay" groups demanding that a pasta company market towards them. Nobody was asking them to do so. But, when they specifically state they would absolutely not run any advertising featuring gay people, they are indeed making a statement that's meant to alienate. All done without prompting from the LGBT.

So, you have to ask, why would they make that statement if nobody was even asking them to do so?


So it has nothing to do with the fact they wouldn't advertise to the gay community but just saying it is what is upsetting then.


Do you hear the LGBT demanding that 31 Flavor or Olive Garden or Kraft make commercials featuring gay people? Not at all. nor did anyone protest Chick-Fil-A prior to their founders' comments.


Nope. I only heard a CEO say that he wasn't interested in running advertising featuring a gay family because he wants to focus his brand around the traditional family. He didn't say gays shouldn't buy his pasta or anything like that. He just said he wanted to position his brand around the traditional mother. So it's ok to do that but not say it, or it's not ok to do that?

An over focus and overreaction on the minutiae is widening the gap, not closing it.


Just for reference, since I was unfamiliar of this to begin with, let's see his actual quotes:

Quote:
“I would never do [a commercial] with a homosexual family, not for lack of respect, but because we don’t agree with them,”...
“Ours is a classic family where the woman plays a fundamental role,”..."if gays “like our pasta and our advertising, they’ll eat our pasta. If they don’t like it, then they will not eat it and they will eat another brand.”


I think the latter part of his comments are what you are arguing should be acceptable; if they like the pasta and advertising, they will buy his pasta. If not, then they won't.

But, his prior comments show his intentions and his feeling toward gay people, that go beyond a simple marketing strategy.

So, even if gay people previously enjoyed his pasta and didn't care that his advertising only featured "traditional families" in it, he actively invited them to not buy his pasta by making these comments.

And the backlash he received is just part of the dialog he initiated. It didn't end the conversation, as you're claiming. Just because he eventually caved to their boycott, doesn't mean his voice was restricted. The gay activists also have the same right to be vocal do they not?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:04 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

It was an extreme example to prove a point. The point being, why do companies have to advertise to every single potential segment out there to avoid alienating anyone? Companies can advertise to whoever they like.

I just don't understand the mentality of being upset because a pasta company (or whatever) chooses not to advertise to a particular segment.

That feeling of alienation, as silly as it is, is why we can't talk about stuff. People get offended too quickly these days and are constantly on the defensive.


I think you're not seeing the difference in intentions here. Like I mentioned previously, there weren't "pro-gay" groups demanding that a pasta company market towards them. Nobody was asking them to do so. But, when they specifically state they would absolutely not run any advertising featuring gay people, they are indeed making a statement that's meant to alienate. All done without prompting from the LGBT.

So, you have to ask, why would they make that statement if nobody was even asking them to do so?


So it has nothing to do with the fact they wouldn't advertise to the gay community but just saying it is what is upsetting then.


Do you hear the LGBT demanding that 31 Flavor or Olive Garden or Kraft make commercials featuring gay people? Not at all. nor did anyone protest Chick-Fil-A prior to their founders' comments.


Nope. I only heard a CEO say that he wasn't interested in running advertising featuring a gay family because he wants to focus his brand around the traditional family. He didn't say gays shouldn't buy his pasta or anything like that. He just said he wanted to position his brand around the traditional mother. So it's ok to do that but not say it, or it's not ok to do that?

An over focus and overreaction on the minutiae is widening the gap, not closing it.



I don't know exactly how warped you have to be to not see how incredibly offensive his comments are.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429

PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:05 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

It was an extreme example to prove a point. The point being, why do companies have to advertise to every single potential segment out there to avoid alienating anyone? Companies can advertise to whoever they like.

I just don't understand the mentality of being upset because a pasta company (or whatever) chooses not to advertise to a particular segment.

That feeling of alienation, as silly as it is, is why we can't talk about stuff. People get offended too quickly these days and are constantly on the defensive.


I think you're not seeing the difference in intentions here. Like I mentioned previously, there weren't "pro-gay" groups demanding that a pasta company market towards them. Nobody was asking them to do so. But, when they specifically state they would absolutely not run any advertising featuring gay people, they are indeed making a statement that's meant to alienate. All done without prompting from the LGBT.

So, you have to ask, why would they make that statement if nobody was even asking them to do so?


So it has nothing to do with the fact they wouldn't advertise to the gay community but just saying it is what is upsetting then.


Do you hear the LGBT demanding that 31 Flavor or Olive Garden or Kraft make commercials featuring gay people? Not at all. nor did anyone protest Chick-Fil-A prior to their founders' comments.


Nope. I only heard a CEO say that he wasn't interested in running advertising featuring a gay family because he wants to focus his brand around the traditional family. He didn't say gays shouldn't buy his pasta or anything like that. He just said he wanted to position his brand around the traditional mother. So it's ok to do that but not say it, or it's not ok to do that?

An over focus and overreaction on the minutiae is widening the gap, not closing it.


Just for reference, since I was unfamiliar of this to begin with, let's see his actual quotes:

Quote:
“I would never do [a commercial] with a homosexual family, not for lack of respect, but because we don’t agree with them,”...
“Ours is a classic family where the woman plays a fundamental role,”..."if gays “like our pasta and our advertising, they’ll eat our pasta. If they don’t like it, then they will not eat it and they will eat another brand.”


I think the latter part of his comments are what you are arguing should be acceptable; if they like the pasta and advertising, they will buy his pasta. If not, then they won't.

But, his prior comments show his intentions and his feeling toward gay people, that go beyond a simple marketing strategy.

So, even if gay people previously enjoyed his pasta and didn't care that his advertising only featured "traditional families" in it, he actively invited them to not buy his pasta by making these comments.

And the backlash he received is just part of the dialog he initiated. It didn't end the conversation, as you're claiming. Just because he eventually caved to their boycott, doesn't mean his voice was restricted. The gay activists also have the same right to be vocal do they not?



I think RF views THAT as special pleading.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:28 am    Post subject:

vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
ringfinger wrote:

It was an extreme example to prove a point. The point being, why do companies have to advertise to every single potential segment out there to avoid alienating anyone? Companies can advertise to whoever they like.

I just don't understand the mentality of being upset because a pasta company (or whatever) chooses not to advertise to a particular segment.

That feeling of alienation, as silly as it is, is why we can't talk about stuff. People get offended too quickly these days and are constantly on the defensive.


I think you're not seeing the difference in intentions here. Like I mentioned previously, there weren't "pro-gay" groups demanding that a pasta company market towards them. Nobody was asking them to do so. But, when they specifically state they would absolutely not run any advertising featuring gay people, they are indeed making a statement that's meant to alienate. All done without prompting from the LGBT.

So, you have to ask, why would they make that statement if nobody was even asking them to do so?


So it has nothing to do with the fact they wouldn't advertise to the gay community but just saying it is what is upsetting then.


Do you hear the LGBT demanding that 31 Flavor or Olive Garden or Kraft make commercials featuring gay people? Not at all. nor did anyone protest Chick-Fil-A prior to their founders' comments.


Nope. I only heard a CEO say that he wasn't interested in running advertising featuring a gay family because he wants to focus his brand around the traditional family. He didn't say gays shouldn't buy his pasta or anything like that. He just said he wanted to position his brand around the traditional mother. So it's ok to do that but not say it, or it's not ok to do that?

An over focus and overreaction on the minutiae is widening the gap, not closing it.


Just for reference, since I was unfamiliar of this to begin with, let's see his actual quotes:

Quote:
“I would never do [a commercial] with a homosexual family, not for lack of respect, but because we don’t agree with them,”...
“Ours is a classic family where the woman plays a fundamental role,”..."if gays “like our pasta and our advertising, they’ll eat our pasta. If they don’t like it, then they will not eat it and they will eat another brand.”


I think the latter part of his comments are what you are arguing should be acceptable; if they like the pasta and advertising, they will buy his pasta. If not, then they won't.

But, his prior comments show his intentions and his feeling toward gay people, that go beyond a simple marketing strategy.

So, even if gay people previously enjoyed his pasta and didn't care that his advertising only featured "traditional families" in it, he actively invited them to not buy his pasta by making these comments.

And the backlash he received is just part of the dialog he initiated. It didn't end the conversation, as you're claiming. Just because he eventually caved to their boycott, doesn't mean his voice was restricted. The gay activists also have the same right to be vocal do they not?


Invited them to not buy his pasta? He said, if they want to buy it, they'll buy it. He just said he wasn't going to explicitly target the gay community in his advertising because he didn't agree with how that community aligns with his company's brand values. (Those values being the traditional family).

I'm not going to argue the guy is open minded. What I'm arguing is that not being open minded, doesn't make you a bigot. It doesn't necessarily make you a hateful person. That's a distinction we are unable to make any longer today. It's unfortunate. As I said in a previous post, it's hate or love. It's with us or against us. We're at a very extremist time right now. It's rigatoni or bigotoni (the latter of which people were calling him).

Let's both take the stance that he does not "agree" with the gay community. Does he have to? Can't he disagree with it as long as he doesn't explicitly deny them the ability to purchase his products, treat them unfairly, or work at his company? All he said was that he wasn't going to highlight them in his advertising. That's it. He didn't say we wouldn't hire them (wrong), he didn't say they should burn in hell (wrong), he just wants to focus his brand around the traditional Italian family.

Boo on him for not being the most open minded human in the world, but we really ought to move on to more pressing matters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:20 am    Post subject:

So what if his brand values were based on a religious belief that interracial couples are an abomination, and he nixed an interracial couple in an ad because he didn't want to demonstrate approval?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vanexelent
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081

PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:34 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:

Invited them to not buy his pasta? He said, if they want to buy it, they'll buy it. He just said he wasn't going to explicitly target the gay community in his advertising because he didn't agree with how that community aligns with his company's brand values. (Those values being the traditional family).


Yes, and by explicitly stating he doesn't agree with how gay people live their lives, he initiated a conversation with anyone who either agrees with him or doesn't.

Quote:
I'm not going to argue the guy is open minded. What I'm arguing is that not being open minded, doesn't make you a bigot. It doesn't necessarily make you a hateful person. That's a distinction we are unable to make any longer today. It's unfortunate. As I said in a previous post, it's hate or love. It's with us or against us. We're at a very extremist time right now. It's rigatoni or bigotoni (the latter of which people were calling him).



That's fine. I don't think he's evil either. He's narrow minded and as a CEO made a big financial mistake by making an unwarranted statement that a brand of pasta cares about how gay people live their lives.


Quote:
Let's both take the stance that he does not "agree" with the gay community. Does he have to? Can't he disagree with it as long as he doesn't explicitly deny them the ability to purchase his products, treat them unfairly, or work at his company? All he said was that he wasn't going to highlight them in his advertising. That's it. He didn't say we wouldn't hire them (wrong), he didn't say they should burn in hell (wrong), he just wants to focus his brand around the traditional Italian family.

Boo on him for not being the most open minded human in the world, but we really ought to move on to more pressing matters.


Yes, that's fine. I've never even heard his statements until you brought them up. I don't buy his pasta regularly and this wouldn't hinder me from doing so. But, to a gay person, who did buy his pasta, hearing that he didn't "agree" with their life style would be kind of hurtful. And since he's being vocal about it, why can't they also respond vocally? Why isn't boycotting a legitimate way of being vocal? If he's telling people he doesn't care if they buy his pasta or not, why not see how much he's willing to accept that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:28 am    Post subject:

24 wrote:
So what if his brand values were based on a religious belief that interracial couples are an abomination, and he nixed an interracial couple in an ad because he didn't want to demonstrate approval?


Way too many hypotheticals there and no other information available.

Is it ever ok to intentionally nix someone or a group of people from an ad purely because of race?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB