Paddy Power Transphobic Ad,

bodice ripper · 23-02-2012 7:11pm

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Um, advertising is nothing more than a vehicle for social engineering. Usually it engineers us into buying stuff, but it is also used to influence attitudes on social issues.

Just to be clear - you think marriage equality should stop advertising.

The trans person who may have been attacked as a result of this didn't give their consent either. But, of course, they are just a trans person, so their suffering doesn't matter. Indeed, their suffering is what the joke is all about.

Ha ha ha.

i have no idea what you are talking about with the marriage equality bit.

I have already addressed your other points on other posts, and I don't feel like being accused of transphobia for holding a different viewpoint to yours, so unless you have anything else....

Pacifist Pigeon · 23-02-2012 7:32pm

Shakti wrote: »

“The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house”
Audre Lorde

I would say having "master" and "free speech" in a sentence (or using "master's tool" in relation to free speech) is a bit of a contradiction. LGBT people gaining more acceptance is society is exactly as a result of free speech and expression.

Strawberry Fields · 23-02-2012 8:22pm

Cannot believe people are quoting free speech on something this offensive. Free speech is a constitutional right but like all constitutional rights is subject to limits regards the common good. This ad is not in the common good and therefore the issue of free speech does not arise in it's legal context as the right is not absolute but subject to limitations.

Shakti · 23-02-2012 8:45pm

I think that free speech won out in the end the deciding factor was the quality and character of what was being said ie. the 'speech'. We spoke and we were heard, were there was darkness there is now a little light.

In other news Kauto Star and Long Run renew battle for Gold Cup glory at Cheltenham.

Pacifist Pigeon · 23-02-2012 9:29pm

godeas16 wrote: »

Cannot believe people are quoting free speech on something this offensive. Free speech is a constitutional right but like all constitutional rights is subject to limits regards the common good. This ad is not in the common good and therefore the issue of free speech does not arise in it's legal context as the right is not absolute but subject to limitations.

Free speech isn't a constitutional right, it's a natural right - it not something that cannot be imparted on you, it can only be taken away from you. There shouldn't be limits to free speech. Free speech isn't specifically there to promote the common good of the collective, rather the good of the individual.

The degree of "offense" associated with this advertisement (or anything that invokes free speech) is subjective; one person might find it offensive, another person may not - and I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would disagree with that but it's a fact (just look at that thread in After Hours).

The great thing about free speech is that it helps thrash out even the worst ideas and views and have them scrutinised by the public at large, not any individual authority.

Think about it, if that advertisement (and anything else that portrays views like it) were never released due to censorship, we would never be having this discussion. By doing so, we probably wouldn't have discussed the exact offensive nature of the advert. But because the advertisement was released, people from non-transgender backgrounds are probably more educated now by reading this thread (and other) because of the debate and controversy that advert invoked.

The advertising industry now knows that this type of advertisement causes offense and that they could loose profits over it, in doing so they have learned their lesson about what offends transgender people and the likelihood of it happening again would be slimmer now than before. If they hadn't released that ad, they may have never known the true feelings of the transgender community. One of the most efficient ways of educating people is through debate and discussion.

I think this same logic can be applied to almost anything really. Take one of the world's most offensive and hateful ideology; neo-Nazism. Debate over this ideology has been made illegal in many countries; their symbols and slogan are banned. But this doesn't tackle the problem that is neo-Nazism, it facts it allows the ideology to fester underground amongst the young, naive and impressionable; it has developed a cult following. By not allowing discussion and debate in public, these people may never know why exactly their views are wrong. It is a taboo subject; people are often attracted to the novelty associated with the taboo.

The crux of the point I'm trying to make is, without free speech some offensive message may be censored, but the public at large and the person who created it will never know exactly why the message is offensive because open discussion is outlawed - therefore, they will continue to hold their views for the most part. Discussion, engaging, trashing out of ideas and debate is the only way the public at large will gain full understanding of the issues that effect and offends transgender people.

This is off-topic, I know, and may merit a complete new thread. But it's an interesting analogy.

I feel people here are hostile to discuss the exact offensive nature of the advertisement (thankfully it has been discussion but through much drama in between). There are a huge amount of people out there who do not understand how exactly it was offensive to transgender people. Awareness of transgenderism in every day life is still something that is very new to many many people, perhaps most people.

Annasopra · 23-02-2012 9:40pm

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Free speech isn't a constitutional right, it's a natural right - it not something that cannot be imparted on you, it can only be taken away from you. There shouldn't be limits to free speech. Free speech isn't specifically there to promote the common good of the collective, rather the good of the individual.

There most definitely should be limits when minority groups are under attack or there are calls for violence against people because of their status whether that be Gays, Christians, Irish people etc

There was an example in the UK only last week where limits to free speech proved to be a good thing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-16656679

Pacifist Pigeon · 23-02-2012 9:59pm

mango salsa wrote: »

There most definitely should be limits when minority groups are under attack or there are calls for violence against people because of their status whether that be Gays, Christians, Irish people etc

There was an example in the UK only last week where limits to free speech proved to be a good thing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-16656679

Let's make this clear. Violent reprisal and advocating violent reprisal are two completely different things. For the most part, those people might as well have been preaching to the choir, which would probably have happened with free speech or without free speech. The logic I went through in my previous post still holds in that case as it does in any other similar case. Censoring their ideas isn't going to stop their ideas from festering.

Annasopra · 23-02-2012 10:16pm

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Let's make this clear. Violent reprisal and advocating violent reprisal are two completely different things. For the most part, those people might as well have been preaching to the choir, which would probably have happened with free speech or with no free speech. The logic I went through in my previous post still holds in that case as it does in any other similar case. Censoring their ideas isn't going to stop their ideas from festering.

No - I'm sorry - I think the idea of absolute free speech without limits and protections for people is disgusting, vile and inherently dangerous. In this case they were calling for gay men to be executed. If you think that's acceptable in the name of free speech fair enough. I don't and thankfully the UK Government and courts don't. I see absolutely no justification whatsoever for so called free speech when it directs hate and calls for violence towards people based on their status. It must be limited.

Pacifist Pigeon · 23-02-2012 10:25pm

mango salsa wrote: »

No - I'm sorry - I think the idea of absolute free speech without limits and protections for people is disgusting, vile and inherently dangerous.In this case they were calling for gay men to be executed. If you think that's acceptable in the name of free speech fair enough. I don't and thankfully the UK Government and courts don't. I see absolutely no justification whatsoever for so called free speech when it directs hate and calls for violence towards people based on their status. It must be limited.

And I'd argue the absolute opposite for reasons that I discussed two posts ago (perhaps read around where I discussed neo-Nazism and free-speech). It's all well and good to use words such as "disgusting", "vile" and "dangerous" but that's entirely subjective and your opinion. If you see no justification for absolute free speech, then perhaps it merits another thread where we can discuss these things.

Strawberry Fields · 23-02-2012 10:56pm

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

It's all well and good to use words such as "disgusting", "vile" and "dangerous" but that's entirely subjective and your opinion.

Eh the ad has been taking down because a substantial number of people complained meaning a substantial number of people found it offensive therefore objectively the ad is offensive. It is in fact your subjective belief that discussing offensive material is a good thing and I doubt you can back your position with any evidence, I don't need to debate nazism to know why it's offensive and I'm sure most people would agree.

anotherlostie · 24-02-2012 12:13am

To put the Paddy Power advertising department's reason for making this ad in perspective (guess the press mileage proves to them there's no such thing to business as bad publicity;))

I wonder how long before reports of chavs being attacked with tranquilizer darts appear on twitter?

deirdre_dub · 24-02-2012 12:36am

Apparently the transgender ad was seen on 3e at about 8pm tonight.

Complaints have been sent to the ASAI and to TV3, and TENI are going to make an official response in the morning.

Not out of the woods yet. Or, a victory for hate - depending on which side of the fence you fall.

baby and crumble · 24-02-2012 12:49am

God everything Paddy Powers touches is just appalling. That ad up there is really pathetic.

"The app for civilized people- and the Irish".

How big of them.

eaglach · 24-02-2012 1:37am

mango salsa wrote: »

1. Calling transgender women; men, horses, dogs. This is a refusal to acknowledge their gender identity and comparing them to animals.

2. Having some "spot the tranny" as game and thereby ridiculing trans women and dehumanising them as something to be laughed at.

3. The visual cues include cross dressers, the words mare and stallion, male toilets and some bloke waving a sausage around. With these visual clues they seem to be comparing trans people to horses, alluding to the penis or lack of (waving around a sausage) and also suggesting a problem around toilets.

Firstly, I seem to remember him saying "beautiful transgendered ladies" so your first arguement goes out the window. Gender identity acknowledged. Comparing them to animals? Of course they're going to reference horses. Its ladies day at the races! And the dog reference, I have heard many people on tv refer to less than attractive women as dogs. I didnt realise all the transgendered are beautiful.

Secondly, you're trying to make it sound worse than it is. You use the word "tranny". That is mentioned nowhere in the ad, but by using this word yourself you make it sound as though they have said it. Misleading. As I said before, I dont think "spot the gay guy" would be seen as such a bad thing.

And finally, the visual clues. You say crossdressers. How do you know they're crossdressers? And the thing with the sausage, very observant! Never even noticed that. I dont mean to be funny but dont you see the correlation with the sausage and the transgendered?

I dont see how this is negative towards the transgendered. There are even actual members of the transgendered community in the ad. I think its all just a storm in a teacup.

eaglach · 24-02-2012 1:46am

baby and crumble wrote: »

God everything Paddy Powers touches is just appalling. That ad up there is really pathetic.

"The app for civilized people- and the Irish".

How big of them.

Sorry for double posting but had to respond to this. You really, really need to get a sense of humour. If you can't find the humour in that then obviously you were going to be offended by their other transgender ad.

I will warn you to never watch Family Guy or a George Carlin stand up show. You will probably have a heart attack.

Shakti · 24-02-2012 2:13am

baby and crumble wrote: »

God everything Paddy Powers touches is just appalling. That ad up there is really pathetic.

"The app for civilized people- and the Irish".

How big of them.

Yet another low for sadvertising.
Do people really find that stereotype bull**** funny?
Is that actual news footage of people being kicked and beaten at Ascot?

G.K. · 24-02-2012 3:13am

eaglach wrote: »

Firstly, I seem to remember him saying "beautiful transgendered ladies" so your first arguement goes out the window. Gender identity acknowledged. Comparing them to animals? Of course they're going to reference horses. Its ladies day at the races! And the dog reference, I have heard many people on tv refer to less than attractive women as dogs. I didnt realise all the transgendered are beautiful.

Secondly, you're trying to make it sound worse than it is. You use the word "tranny". That is mentioned nowhere in the ad, but by using this word yourself you make it sound as though they have said it. Misleading. As I said before, I dont think "spot the gay guy" would be seen as such a bad thing.

And finally, the visual clues. You say crossdressers. How do you know they're crossdressers? And the thing with the sausage, very observant! Never even noticed that. I dont mean to be funny but dont you see the correlation with the sausage and the transgendered?

I dont see how this is negative towards the transgendered. There are even actual members of the transgendered community in the ad. I think its all just a storm in a teacup.

Why can't people not have to pick us out at all?

Calling ugly women dogs is pathetic however many times it's been on TV.

What we mean by 'Spot the tranny' is encouraging people to pick us out, from other women. The ad calls us men. it's saying we're lesser than other women.

I can't understand how you don't see it is negative toward us.

eaglach wrote: »

Sorry for double posting but had to respond to this. You really, really need to get a sense of humour. If you can't find the humour in that then obviously you were going to be offended by their other transgender ad.

If they'd equated black people as lesser than white people there'd have been an oproar, and rightly so. Why are we any different?

deirdre_dub · 24-02-2012 10:12am

I believe that everyone who believes this ad should not be pulled should be sought out, and if they are sought out by people with knives in their pockets and murderous intent on their minds is something I wash my hands of.

Still believe in free speech?

Because that is what this ad is saying to me. Except I'm not being sought out for what I believe in - I'm being sought out for what I am. And there are without a shadow of a doubt some people seeking me out with knives in their pockets and murderous intent on their minds.

You want me to take people who believe that my safety and my life is less important than their entertainment, and defend their "right to free speech". While I'm left in the gutter fighting for my life?! No - such people do not have that right.

Rev Hellfire · 24-02-2012 11:02am

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I believe that everyone who believes this ad should not be pulled should be sought out, and if they are sought out by people with knives in their pockets and murderous intent on their minds is something I wash my hands of.

Still believe in free speech?.

Yes, because the whole point in free speech is to allow things which people disagree with or wish silenced to spoken. Naturally that doesn't prevent society (law) from holding you accountable for your words, hence laws around promoting violence etc.

Pacifist Pigeon · 24-02-2012 11:24am

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I believe that everyone who believes this ad should not be pulled should be sought out, and if they are sought out by people with knives in their pockets and murderous intent on their minds is something I wash my hands of.

Still believe in free speech?

Because that is what this ad is saying to me. Except I'm not being sought out for what I believe in - I'm being sought out for what I am. And there are without a shadow of a doubt some people seeking me out with knives in their pockets and murderous intent on their minds.

You want me to take people who believe that my safety and my life is less important than their entertainment, and defend their "right to free speech". While I'm left in the gutter fighting for my life?! No - such people do not have that right.

You have a right to free speech (well, not in Ireland), but you also have a right to defend yourself with force (or at least should) if needs be (proportionately, of course).

floggg · 24-02-2012 11:31am

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I believe that everyone who believes this ad should not be pulled should be sought out, and if they are sought out by people with knives in their pockets and murderous intent on their minds is something I wash my hands of.

Still believe in free speech?.

Yes, because the whole point in free speech is to allow things which people disagree with or wish silenced to spoken. Naturally that doesn't prevent society (law) from holding you accountable for your words, hence laws around promoting violence etc.

People clearly don't understand the nature of free speech rights. There is never under law any such thing as absolute freedom if speech.

In Ireland it is expressly subject to public order and morality. The ECHR has similar express restrictions. Even without them, there is a concept known as clash of rights where two rights come into conflict one will outweigh the other.

No democratic society will allow speech which advocates violence or harm. Even America with its over emphasis on free speech prohibits hate speech. To argue for absolute freedom of speech is naive.

Anyway, this isn't about free speech really - there's no message in the ad. It's just about offending people. For the common good, we prohibit things from tv that are in bad taste or likely to cause upset. Plenty of other ads have been banned for a lot less hurtful issues - e.g. A very funny ford ka as where the car kills a cat.

Nobody was up in arms about that, because everybody knows there are just some things you can't show on tv. A dead cat or an erect penis are fine to prohibit from being shown in tv, but if a minority group says they'd rather not be the but of an advertising joke, people think how dare they stop us from having a bit of fun at their expense.

bodice ripper · 24-02-2012 12:25pm

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I believe that everyone who believes this ad should not be pulled should be sought out, and if they are sought out by people with knives in their pockets and murderous intent on their minds is something I wash my hands of.

Still believe in free speech?

Because that is what this ad is saying to me. Except I'm not being sought out for what I believe in - I'm being sought out for what I am. And there are without a shadow of a doubt some people seeking me out with knives in their pockets and murderous intent on their minds.

You want me to take people who believe that my safety and my life is less important than their entertainment, and defend their "right to free speech". While I'm left in the gutter fighting for my life?! No - such people do not have that right.

This is much closer to inciting violence than the ad, just saying.

And yeah, I still believe in free speech.

Shakti · 24-02-2012 1:11pm

Disappointingly TV3 have decided to air the transphobic Paddy Power advert in Ireland as Deirdre pointed out earlier...

statement re: TV3 airing paddy power advert

L.Jenkins · 24-02-2012 2:29pm

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

You have a right to free speech (well, not in Ireland), but you also have a right to defend yourself with force (or at least should) if needs be (proportionately, of course).

I'm trained to do serious damage, even kill without a second and I'll do it unsympathetically if forced to. Is this a position I should have to face because of who I am?

eaglach · 24-02-2012 6:21pm

I see a big concern here is that this ad is inciting hatred. How is it at all inciting hatred?

G.K. · 24-02-2012 6:46pm

Do you not read our responses to you?

Pacifist Pigeon · 24-02-2012 9:42pm

ItsThatManAgain wrote: »

I'm trained to do serious damage, even kill without a second and I'll do it unsympathetically if forced to. Is this a position I should have to face because of who I am?

Well, I think you should make that known to all, so that people who don't know and try to attack you don't get killed over some petty thief or name calling, say.

anotherlostie · 24-02-2012 10:19pm

eaglach wrote: »

I see a big concern here is that this ad is inciting hatred. How is it at all inciting hatred?

But don't the voices in your head hear the points where the narrator tells people watching the ad to stick knives into people?

I mean I don't, but reading this thread has left me convinced now that they must be in there somewhere because those comments haven't really been challenged.

Shakti · 24-02-2012 10:47pm

anotherlostie wrote: »

But don't the voices in your head hear the points where the narrator tells people watching the ad to stick knives into people?

I mean I don't, but reading this thread has left me convinced now that they must be in there somewhere because those comments haven't really been challenged.

You don't have to be so patronising you know you could try to understand instead,

R_E_S_P_E_C_T (find out what it means to me)

SuziQ · 25-02-2012 3:01am

This is the text of a mail I sent to TV3 to complain about this advert.

I write to complain about the continued screening of the above mentioned advert.
I am deeply offended and threatened by it. In many ways it appears to transgress the limits set as acceptable for broadcast. It is not balanced in gender presentation, and deceives by appearing to use composit body parts to 'fake' an image of a woman with a very hairy forearm. However I am not in a position to prove or otherwise confirm this but perhaps the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland can investigate this. This advert, in my honest view, promotes transphobia and is deeply misogynistic.
However my main issue with the advert is the crude explicit sexual imagery present.
I am surprised that you broadcast it just prior to the Manchester United game during the week when you know that a large proportion of the viewers would be children, children as defined by the BAI definition. I am surprised the you continue to broadcast an advert with such a subliminal yet obvious sexual content. It is yet one more proof that this advert goes well beyond any definition of a 'bit of harmless fun' as claimed by the Paddy Power organisation.
At approximately 11 seconds into the advert at the time the odious incitement to 'Spot the stallions from the mares ' is made the text on the screen comprising the words Stallion and Mare is animated to enact a crude but obvious sexual coupling of a stallion covering a mare. Do you support the continued broadcast of this offensive imagery coinciding as it does to the image in the background of a gentleman waving a long sausage. To this viewer the complete scene makes tacit links conflating transexual female to being a stallion (male). Can you explain what is the relevance of little vingnette to the product that Paddy Power want to market or sell? How is this harmless fun?

I think that you have been fooled by the Paddy Power organisation into broadcasting gratuitous sexual imagery and that you should cease to broadcast it.
You should apologise to all those who have been exposed to it and should accept on this occasion your inability to recognise that the imagery presented is highly inappropriate to the context of the advert and to the demographics of the audience exposed to it

eaglach · 26-02-2012 1:09am

G.K. wrote: »

Do you not read our responses to you?

I have read the responses. They don't identify anything in the ad which might incite hatred. I don't see how anyone, after watching the ad, would suddenly think to themselves "oh, this makes me hate the transgendered community".

deirdre_dub · 26-02-2012 10:29am

eaglach wrote: »

I have read the responses. They don't identify anything in the ad which might incite hatred. I don't see how anyone, after watching the ad, would suddenly think to themselves "oh, this makes me hate the transgendered community".

It encourages "othering", and it demeans the "others" ("that's a dog", as well as the deliberate misgendering).

Transphobia isn't the fear of trans people - it is attitudes which demean or dehumanise or disrespect trans people. And the ad is full of those attitudes.

deirdre_dub · 26-02-2012 10:32am

TV3 have stopped answering the phone - you are now sent to voicemail - and no doubt emails to complaints@tv3.ie are ending up in the bin.

So, I suggest, on Monday, phoning them and leaving a message just asking for someone in advertising to get back to you. That way, they either have to hear our complaints in person, or they have to stop taking phone calls in their advertising department.

deirdre_dub · 26-02-2012 10:40am

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Yes, because the whole point in free speech is to allow things which people disagree with or wish silenced to spoken. Naturally that doesn't prevent society (law) from holding you accountable for your words, hence laws around promoting violence etc.

First of all, the most effective silencing mechanism is fear, and "free speech" is often used to instill fear, especially when it comes to minorities.

Second, one of the responsibilities of free speech isn't just around promoting violence, it is also to not restrict the freedoms of others. My freedoms are now restricted. I cannot go to Cheltenham - my freedom of movement has been curtailed. Yes I have the right to defend myself should anything happen, but I'd almost certainly lose.

Free speech never gives you the right to do something which restricts the freedom of movement of another. And that is what has happened here.

Rev Hellfire · 26-02-2012 11:59am

deirdre_dub wrote: »

First of all, the most effective silencing mechanism is fear, and "free speech" is often used to instill fear, especially when it comes to minorities.

True free speech allows unpalatable opinions to be vocalised, but equally it ensures minorities are permitted to voice their opinions also.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

My freedoms are now restricted. I cannot go to Cheltenham - my freedom of movement has been curtailed. Yes I have the right to defend myself should anything happen, but I'd almost certainly lose.

Are you saying that Cheltenham itself is restricting you entrance? Or that the security that would be present at such an even would turn a blind eye should anything negative occur? I for one find that hard to believe.

Pacifist Pigeon · 26-02-2012 12:04pm

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Second, one of the responsibilities of free speech isn't just around promoting violence, it is also to not restrict the freedoms of others. My freedoms are now restricted. I cannot go to Cheltenham - my freedom of movement has been curtailed. Yes I have the right to defend myself should anything happen, but I'd almost certainly lose.

Since when? Do they not allow transgender people in there anymore?

Is this a case of them restricting access or the fact that you just choose not to go?

Azure_sky · 26-02-2012 2:24pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

True free speech allows unpalatable opinions to be vocalised, but equally it ensures minorities are permitted to voice their opinions also.

If true free speech, taken to it's literal form, was ever allowed chaos would reign supreme. Do you believe a big gang of skangers should be allowed to call you a fag, and even more derogatory slurs, every single time you leave your house? You don't believe in reasonable harassment laws?

As someone else said there's a difference between freedom of ideas, which is what free speech was originally meant to mean, and the perverted right wing American version of free speech-where anything goes.

I believe I should have the right to call religious people deluded-that's the freedom to express an idea. However I don't believe I have the right to call Muslims (insert the most foul thing you can think of). Offence caused by the former is incidental to the expression of the idea. Offense caused by the latter is gratuitous.

South Park is a hilarious show, and often makes great points, but don't rely on it for your primary source for politics and philosophy. Which is very common theses days.

deirdre_dub · 26-02-2012 6:57pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

This is much closer to inciting violence than the ad, just saying.

First, I'm glad that you agree that the ad incites violence.

Second, the ad isn't any closer to inciting violence, for the reasons I pointed out. The only reason why it seems to be closer to inciting violence to you is because what I said targets you, whereas the ad doesn't.

deirdre_dub · 26-02-2012 7:03pm

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Since when? Do they not allow transgender people in there anymore?

Is this a case of them restricting access or the fact that you just choose not to go?

The reason why free speech doesn't work is because nobody ever listens, especially when it is someone from a marginalised group that is speaking.

I've already explained why I cannot go to Cheltenham, on a number of occassions.

For those that need to be spoonfed --

deirdre_dub wrote: »

And the fun and the humour continues - trans media watch have received reports of incidents of violence associated with this ad

http://twitter.com/#!/TransMediaWatch/status/172626676709208064

deirdre_dub wrote: »

An ad that encourages the hunting down of members of a maligned group is INEVITABLY going to lead to violence against members of that group. And that is what has happened..

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Yes I have the right to defend myself should anything happen, but I'd almost certainly lose.

bodice ripper · 26-02-2012 7:28pm

deirdre_dub wrote: »

bodice ripper wrote: »

This is much closer to inciting violence than the ad, just saying.

First, I'm glad that you agree that the ad incites violence.

Second, the ad isn't any closer to inciting violence, for the reasons I pointed out. The only reason why it seems to be closer to inciting violence to you is because what I said targets you, whereas the ad doesn't.

Repeating yourself didn't make your reasons any stronger.

Pacifist Pigeon · 26-02-2012 7:55pm

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The reason why free speech doesn't work

Didn't think I'd ever read something like this, especially on a supposedly liberal forum.

I utterly disagree with you on free speech, deirdre_dub. I think that without free speech and expression, the LGBT movement (& other minority groups) would have never gotten as much sway as they did in the 20th century.

Azure_sky · 26-02-2012 8:45pm

I love how all the social libertarians totally evade my argument.:D

Shakti · 26-02-2012 9:30pm

Qs.
Why did Paddy Power choose Blind People, Transgender People, Disabled People, Child care and Disaffected Youth as their targets for "humorous" titillation based product marketing and then cite 'Freedom Of Speech' as their motivation?

A crusade for 'Freedom of Speech' does not jump to the forefront of my mind when analyzing the campaign in question instead upon reflection it reveals a deeply cynical practice and brief from the outset.

IMO its citation is not genuine, moreover the style of marketing is not about 'HR and Freedom Of speech' its more 'The Green River Killer' style of marketing ie. choose topics or victims which you think whose rights no-one cares about or cares less about, people who don't have the privilege to protest and then you can still approach the wire to prickle the jaded hairs of a dwindling disinterested consumer and pipe them into buying product x, y or z.

deirdre_dub · 26-02-2012 9:32pm

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The reason why free speech doesn't work

Didn't think I'd ever read something like this, especially on a supposedly liberal forum.

I utterly disagree with you on free speech, deirdre_dub. I think that without free speech and expression, the LGBT movement (& other minority groups) would have never gotten as much sway as they did in the 20th century.

So you are opposed to the work the LGB community has done to get laws which prohibit inciting hatred / violence against minorities?

And before you say "this ad doesn't do that" - according to trans media watch, it already has.

Rev Hellfire · 26-02-2012 9:47pm

Azure_sky wrote: »

I love how all the social libertarians totally evade my argument.:D

Perhaps because your 'argument' fails to counter our position. Clearly we are at polar opposites to you, you believe people should only have the right to speak what society has elected is permissible for them to speak.

I (we?) clearly don't, what more is there to say ?

Annasopra · 26-02-2012 10:07pm

I really don't see how this is a freedom of speech issue at all given that the Irish and British state restrict freedom of speech in laws to protect minorities. Incitement to hatred act etc etc etc.

Having said that it seems to me that advocates of complete freedom of speech without restriction really do need to be able to defend why they think it is ok for people to distribute hate based violent material. I don't and never will believe in complete freedom of speech if such a concept can allow the flourishing of violent hate based materials against minorities.

Pacifist Pigeon · 26-02-2012 10:36pm

deirdre_dub wrote: »

So you are opposed to the work the LGB community has done to get laws which prohibit inciting hatred / violence against minorities?

Yes.

However, actually use of force against any individual is a different story altogether.

Being a libertarian, I simply do not favour any laws that (a) inhibit free speech in any way shape or form and (b) are biased (whether it be good or bad) for any particular group or person, apart from laws in relation to unfair dismissal from employment (involving contract).

In terms of LGBT acceptance in society, I favour movements that help directly change societal perception rather than the state's attitude, i.e., a bottom-up approach.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

And before you say "this ad doesn't do that" - according to trans media watch, it already has.

Well, beyond what Trans Media is saying, I understand how the advert may implicitly promote a certain isolation of the transgender community, but I certain do not understand how the advert promotes violence.

Pacifist Pigeon · 26-02-2012 10:52pm

mango salsa wrote: »

Having said that it seems to me that advocates of complete freedom of speech without restriction really do need to be able to defend why they think it is ok for people to distribute hate based violent material.

Morally, I don't find it okay at all to promote violence or hatred (I utterly abhor it), but I do not believe that all morality should enter the legal sphere. Why? Because morality is subjective.

Think of it as follows:

I believe that in the legal sphere, laws should only cover actual use of force/violence, theft, property, breach of contract, etc..

baby and crumble · 26-02-2012 10:59pm

Guys, this is really not an appropriate thread to discuss freedom of speech as an abstract topic- that's what the humanities and philosophy forums are for. Discussing that in this thread is wildly off topic. Any more off-topic posting like this will get yellow carded.

Can I also remind everyone that while all views are welcome, and everyone has an opinion, opinions whereby you tell others what to think or that they should not feel a certain way, is not helpful, and contra the charter.

Can I remind all posters to argue/ discuss with respect and remember that although you can't see the other posters face to face doesn't mean that there are not real people who are feeling very distressed and upset about the effect this advertisement, and others like it, may have upon peoples perceptions of them. Likewise remember that others have very differing political views and that's ok too.

Shakti · 26-02-2012 11:24pm

'Marketing strategies are designed to influence the behaviour of the consumer (gamblers) to benefit the producer/retailer (Paddy Power)'. The more I think about this advert the more insulted I feel on behalf of the consumer. Paddy Power consistently offers a product which is sub-standard and bad value for money according to oddschecker. Instead of giving value for money and staying competitive they instead suggest that their consumers are as narrow minded and bigoted as their narcissistic marketing strategy. Not a way to win customers I would have thought and before anyone steps in with the "over reaction" card........
marketingweek/narcissism-is-no-basis-for-a-good-relationship

Paddy Power Transphobic Ad,

Comments