Paddy Power Transphobic Ad,

eaglach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shakti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'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

Shakti

In fairness Paddy Power is just the frontman this guy has the responsibility..
Patrick Kennedy also a director of 'Bank Of Ireland'

Patrick Kennedy

Non-Executive Director

Appointed to the Court in July 2010. Chief Executive of Paddy Power plc since 2006 having previously been an executive Director since September 2005 and a non-executive Director since March 2004. Prior to joining Paddy Power, was Chief Financial Officer of Greencore Group plc, having held a number of senior positions within the Greencore Group. Also worked with KPMG Corporate Finance in Ireland and the Netherlands and as a strategy consultant with McKinsey & Company in London, Dublin and Amsterdam. He is also a non-executive Director of Elan Corporation plc. (Age 41)

Qualifications: B Comm FCA

Bank of Ireland

Does this mean transgender people can look forward to being ridiculed when applying for a mortgage/loans or making deposits in 'Bank Of Ireland', maybe someone should suggest customers/staff make a game of it on their facebook page?

deirdre_dub

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

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.

So? Just because you don't understand how it happens doesn't mean that it doesn't.

It does.

And, if you want to understand how it happens, read things like the politics.ie thread on this ad, or some of the threads on reddit. There is a lot of vitriolic hatred that transgenderism brings up in people - way beyond what LGB people suffer.

deirdre_dub

Gay Community News pretty much hit the nail on the head with this -

http://www.gcn.ie/Editors_Letter_March

The electronic edition of GCN is here -

http://www.gcn.ie/this_month#mag

Watch out for the idiot that is interviewed on page 12 :pac:

Pacifist Pigeon

deirdre_dub wrote: »

So? Just because you don't understand how it happens doesn't mean that it doesn't.

It does.

And, if you want to understand how it happens, read things like the politics.ie thread on this ad, or some of the threads on reddit. There is a lot of vitriolic hatred that transgenderism brings up in people - way beyond what LGB people suffer.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Gay Community News pretty much hit the nail on the head with this -

http://www.gcn.ie/Editors_Letter_March

The electronic edition of GCN is here -

http://www.gcn.ie/this_month#mag

Watch out for the idiot that is interviewed on page 12 :pac:

Whether it is done in a comedic fashion or not, encouraging people to spot trans women is a call to arms. The stoking of transphobia and homophobia are the same: violence is perpetrated because of the permission such comedy gives to ridicule others. People are hurt.
http://www.gcn.ie/Editors_Letter_March

I don't see how comic ridicule (how ever offensive it may be viewed) leads to physical assault (violence). Using that logic, I could make a connection between the promotion of violence and perhaps anything and everything in the media.

Essentially, the ad is a celebration of the mindless cruelty that drives some people to take their own lives in a society that dubs them unlovable.
http://www.gcn.ie/Editors_Letter_March

I'm just confused (probably due to the vagueness of the above accusation in the GCN article) as to how the content in this advertisement directly promotes violence or even suicide amongst gay or transgender people. I mean seriously, if people are going to make such serious allegations they need to back it up with hard evidence from the advertisement. Being gay myself, I'm quite confused as to how the advertisement would promote violence against anyone (gay or transgender) - I'm probably not the only gay person on this thread who thinks the same. It seems to me that, since allegations of "promoting violence" have surfaced, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon throwing accusations left, right and centre.

It's one thing to suggest that the advertisement was offensive (I'm not questioning that, nor suggesting otherwise - I wouldn't dare to make anyone think otherwise on that note), but to suggest that it promotes violence is another thing altogether. If someone were to bring this to court and accuse the advertisers of promoting violence, they would be questioned and their allegations debated (of course, no-one here has the obligation to do that) and their ideas may even be suggested by the judge to be false. When it comes to serious allegations like this in the legal sphere, there needs to be a distinction between opinions and facts. It's not good enough to simply say that "gay and transgender people say that this promotes violence" and leave the case completely at that, that's not how a fair trial nor how society works. You are bound, by virtue of the fact that you are a rational human being, to make sense of these things and even to argue your case.

(And I'd caution anyone who'd try and make a straw man out of my argument.)

deirdre_dub

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

I'm just confused (probably due to the vagueness of the above accusation in the GCN article) as to how the content in this advertisement directly promotes violence or even suicide amongst gay or transgender people.

Pacifist,

I've answered the question (general societal attitudes towards trans people). Brian Finnegan has answered the question a different way (enabling haters to hate). Others here have answered that question. History has answered that question (Rwanda, Serbia, Germany, and elsewhere).

If you still don't understand it, you probably never will, I'm afraid.

Pacifist Pigeon

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Pacifist,

I've answered the question (general societal attitudes towards trans people). Brian Finnegan has answered the question a different way (enabling haters to hate). Others here have answered that question. History has answered that question (Rwanda, Serbia, Germany, and elsewhere).

If you still don't understand it, you probably never will, I'm afraid.

And now you're trying to compare this advertisement with genocide in Nazis Germany, Rwanda and Serbia! If anything, I'd compare suppressing free-speech to those regimes.

Right, that's me finished for the last time on this thread folks.

deirdre_dub

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

And now you're trying to compare this advertisement with genocide in Nazis Germany, Rwanda and Serbia!

And now you're comparing my comparison with societal attitudes that led to genocide with the genocide itself!

Right, that's me finished for the last time on this thread folks.

Right, that's me finished for the last time with trying to educate people on this thread.

baby and crumble

Ok, I think this thread has run it's course. I'm locking this as really, it's going around in circles.