TK Maxx pull ''offensive'' french shirt

Robsweezie

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/other/http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/other/tk-maxx-were-forced-to-pull-this-%e2%80%98je-suis-over-it%e2%80%99-t-shirt-after-complaints/ar-BBlHFEU?ocid=iehp

http://www.thejournal.ie/tk-maxx-je-suis-t-shirt-2268620-Aug2015/

Je suis over the whole offense angle. I'm sure this is unintentional anyway. Charlie Hebdo dont have the monopoly over this simple french phrase, as awful as January's events were.

jungleman

If you don't like the t-shirt, don't buy it. It should be as simple as that.

I'm afraid that offence and censorship just go hand in hand these days.

frostyjacks

It's a little ironic, given those journalists made a living out of being offensive. Some people just go looking for stuff to be offended by.

How did they know it was me? :eek:

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/101478/358430.JPG

Custardpi

Are we playing Take Offense Olympics here or what? From what I've read (which may not be fully accurate) the shirt was pulled as a result of a complaint from one shopper. Just one. Are businesses so cowed by social media bollocksology that even a single sadsack crank with a twitter account can determine their commercial decisions? If the "Je Suis Charlie" moment meant anything it should mean a pushback against restrictions on freedom of expression based merely on people choosing to take offense at things. To be in favour of the continued publication of CH but oppose this shirt (which wasn't even conceived as a response to the massacre but before it) is rank hypocrisy. Even if some prat did decide to adopt the shirt as a symbol of his support for ISIS, so what? If anything it would be useful for identifying him as a prat. Freedom of speech must mean the freedom to write, wear, say & draw things which others may choose to be offended by, whether that be a cartoon or a t-shirt. Je suis Charlie? Non mon pote, t'es un con!

jungleman

It was the same with the Arnotts t-shirt a few months ago. Someone kicked up a fuss, which led to more people becoming outraged and offended, and the shirt was pulled.

What was the end result in all of this? Was the world made a safer place? Were children now able to sleep soundly at night?

No. The result was that some smug keyboard wielding dickhead on top of a gigantic high horse felt important for one moment in their sad little lives.

El Weirdo

That Tom Young bloke sounds like a complete bellend.

biko

If people could stop getting offended on someone else's behalf, that'd be great.

Lucas Hood

We should stop using the numbers 9 and 11 just to not offend the victims .

Menas

Ah no, another clothes shop to boycott due to my outrage.

I will be clothesless at this rate.

DeadHand

Since they're so politically incorrect and edgy they should produce a t-shirt depicting Mohammad next.

Was it intentionally aimed at that particular incident? My french is really bad, but doesn't it just mean, I am. So it really is I Am Over It, which pretty much fits in with the usual meaningless drivel you get on most T-shirts like that ...

Custardpi

Deleted User wrote: »

Was it intentionally aimed at that particular incident? My french is really bad, but doesn't it just mean, I am. So it really is I Am Over It, which pretty much fits in with the usual meaningless drivel you get on most T-shirts like that ...

The shirt was produced before the CH incident so couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Sh1te design but you'd have to go out of your way to find it offensive, as one knobend has.

Robsweezie

Deleted User wrote: »

Was it intentionally aimed at that particular incident? My french is really bad, but doesn't it just mean, I am. So it really is I Am Over It, which pretty much fits in with the usual meaningless drivel you get on most T-shirts like that ...

no, I would think it's directed at the 'teen girl with attitude' demographic.

Richard Hillman

TK Maxx source their clothes from other retailers. It's not as if it was them that produced it.

Badly Drunk Boy

J’adon’t care...

Son Of A Vidic

It sums up what we have become, if one overly sensitive sap can have a shirt pulled because they are outraged by a simple phrase.

wendell borton

How t-shirts are designed.:D

Samaris

If it was before the whole Charlie Hebdo thing, then it's just mildly unfortunate.

If it was after and in reference to it, it's a bit twattish. Je suis over it? Seriously? If you were involved in it, you'd probably not be over it yet and some idiot teenager wearing a t-shirt that says, basically, "stop talking about it, I really don't care" is a reminder along with a kick in the teeth. If you weren't involved in it and don't care, whatever, you don't have to go shouting about it, unless you're really determined to make everything about you.

Over-sensitive or not, I don't really like co-opting a tragedy for a cheap shot to sell some t-shirts. It's like the Boston Strong/Chicago Stronger crap that some Chicago team pulled.

Waah waah censorship. Better go source one of the t-shirts right now to show you won't be cowed by common decency.

(Mind you, I don't know if I really think the slogans that arise after these tragedies make much sense either - it sounds like something from Twitter (amazingly...) but screw it, I'm not affected, so I'm not going to judge what others find appropriate.)

Yakult

If it was produced before the incident, why the hell are they removing the t-shirt? Seeing as it has nothing to do with the attack or aftermath, that's wrong.

It's sending a bad message, if you find something offensive, just go to social media and cry about it, it will be removed.

This world has turned into an over sensitive land of pussies. Stop being offended at every turn, you'll live happier.

arayess

jungleman wrote: »

I'm afraid that offence and censorship just go hand in hand these days.

yes, you'd wonder if nothing was learned from teh days of church enforced censorship.
In fact you may go so far as you assume the church was only following public opinion, or vocal public opinion

Tom Young spotted the tshirt in a Bristol branch of TK Maxx and told the Mirror that “it’s appalling that a global brand has allowed a tshirt like this to be produced and sold in store”.
Even if the message did not intend to cause upset in relation to the tragic event, I am adamant it should be taken down from stores immediately.

well done tom young for being adamant about my freedom of choice and expression. you plank.

hatrickpatrick

jungleman wrote: »

If you don't like the t-shirt, don't buy it. It should be as simple as that.

I'm afraid that offence and censorship just go hand in hand these days.

Indeed.
I'm starting to think it's time to organise counter protests in favour of free speech. You know, if a thousand SJWs threaten to boycott some company for not self-censoring, two thousand free speech advocates (who I'm convinced massively outnumber SJWs and just aren't as committed to constantly stirring sh!t up as SJWs are) threaten to boycott it if they cave in to censorship demands.

At the end of the day, when it comes to commercial interests, whichever boycott commands the bigger numbers will win. The only reason SJWs tend to get their way is because they're so ridiculous that hardly anyone bothers taking a stand against them, which is understandable, but is causing a false impression that they are the majority.

That's my incredibly optimistic outlook anyway. I'm sure somebody will be here to shoot me down and inform me that the SJWs really are spreading their toxicity like a cancer fast enough that they will soon wipe out effective opposition

Wright

Oh man I would've bought me one of those.

FactCheck

I think people are being slightly hysterical here, or perhaps just don't understand the dynamics of marketing for a major multinational company.

There's a scene in an early episode of Mad Men where the advertising company tries to pitch a new campaign to a client focussed around Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe. The company doesn't go for it, too modern, and Sterling Cooper is briefly disappointed, until a few months down the road news breaks that Marilyn Monroe has been found dead. The campaign couldn't have gone ahead. Had they gone with the campaign, they would have lost a lot of money having to cancel it.

When you are in a business as large and international as TJ/TK Maxx, sometimes events will overtake you. The production process from designing, selecting, manufacturing, and advertising a single item of clothing takes a long time. It isn't anyone's "fault". It's not about hysteria, or finding someone to blame. When you are this big, this widespread, in a global world, every now and then something will happen and a product that seems totally innocuous will become completely unsellable. Every big company knows this and budgets for this. It's a shame, it's a loss for them, but it happens and it isn't really a big deal at all.

RWCNT

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Indeed.
I'm starting to think it's time to organise counter protests in favour of free speech. You know, if a thousand SJWs threaten to boycott some company for not self-censoring, two thousand free speech advocates (who I'm convinced massively outnumber SJWs and just aren't as committed to constantly stirring sh!t up as SJWs are) threaten to boycott it if they cave in to censorship demands.

At the end of the day, when it comes to commercial interests, whichever boycott commands the bigger numbers will win. The only reason SJWs tend to get their way is because they're so ridiculous that hardly anyone bothers taking a stand against them, which is understandable, but is causing a false impression that they are the majority.

That's my incredibly optimistic outlook anyway. I'm sure somebody will be here to shoot me down and inform me that the SJWs really are spreading their toxicity like a cancer fast enough that they will soon wipe out effective opposition

What on earth does that T-shirt have to do with social justice?

Custardpi

RWCNT wrote: »

What on earth does that T-shirt have to do with social justice?

You'd have to ask Tom Young that. "Social justice" is a phrase often employed by the permanently outraged on Twitter & elsewhere to describe the various "causes" they tweet about. It is often in turn employed sarcastically to mock the unreasonably irate on social media.

In this case Mr Young decided that it was his reponsibility to be outraged on behalf of a group of people who might have been upset by a shirt they probably would never have seen, despite the fact that those who actually died lost their lives in the cause of free speech.

This isn't simply about TK Maxx's bottom line, which quite frankly I couldn't care less about, but about the constant need to proclaim "I'm offended by A/B/C, change it now!", no matter how innocuous a thing is. The actual t-shirt is small beans in the general scheme of things but it is indicative of a wider societal trend in the West.

mathie

This idea of “I’m offended”
Well I’ve got news for you. I’m offended by a lot of things too. Where do I send my list?
Life is offensive.
You know what I mean?
Just get in touch with your outer adult. And grow up. And move on.

I’ve seen many comics I’ve hated. I’ve seen many shows that have offended me. I’ve never written a letter. I just go about my life.

- Bill Hicks

RayCon

These T Shirts are probably more sought after now .... betcha there will be copies on Ebay soon enough.

frostyjacks

It really is spreading. Look at the people offended by Frankie Boyle last week. Offended before he even performed, offended just by his existence.

And guess who the Belfast Telegraph got to review it? That's right, alleged rape victim Mairia Cahill.

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/mairia-cahill-let-me-be-frank-my-haters-are-a-sick-joke-31445184.html

Needless to say, she was not amused.

K4t

Custardpi wrote: »

Freedom of speech must mean the freedom to write, wear, say & draw things which others may choose to be offended by, whether that be a cartoon or a t-shirt.

Freedom of speech also includes the right to complain and bitch about a shirt slogan.

Samaris

K4t wrote: »

Freedom of speech also includes the right to complain and bitch about a shirt slogan.

People prefer to ignore that option!

SantryRed

FactCheck wrote: »

I think people are being slightly hysterical here, or perhaps just don't understand the dynamics of marketing for a major multinational company.

There's a scene in an early episode of Mad Men where the advertising company tries to pitch a new campaign to a client focussed around Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe. The company doesn't go for it, too modern, and Sterling Cooper is briefly disappointed, until a few months down the road news breaks that Marilyn Monroe has been found dead. The campaign couldn't have gone ahead. Had they gone with the campaign, they would have lost a lot of money having to cancel it.

When you are in a business as large and international as TJ/TK Maxx, sometimes events will overtake you. The production process from designing, selecting, manufacturing, and advertising a single item of clothing takes a long time. It isn't anyone's "fault". It's not about hysteria, or finding someone to blame. When you are this big, this widespread, in a global world, every now and then something will happen and a product that seems totally innocuous will become completely unsellable. Every big company knows this and budgets for this. It's a shame, it's a loss for them, but it happens and it isn't really a big deal at all.

Your point about Mad Men makes absolutely zero sense. You're talking in a hindsight point of view before anything has even happened. That's not possible?

Custardpi

K4t wrote: »

Freedom of speech also includes the right to complain and bitch about a shirt slogan.

Absolutely & I would defend Mr Young's right to do so, however twattish such bitching might be. However he is not simply complaining about the t-shirt, but demanding that it be withdrawn from sale. He is arguing that the right not to be offended by something is so important that it should cancel out any other rights that might come into play. This argument is exactly the same one that has previously been used by those who dislike various books, drawings, films, comedy shows etc & is part of a wider movement towards the chilling of expression.

K4t

Custardpi wrote: »

Absolutely & I would defend Mr Young's right to do so, however twattish such bitching might be. However he is not simply complaining about the t-shirt, but demanding that it be withdrawn from sale.

As is his right. And Tk Maxx could have told him to go f**k himself. Or ignored him. Etc.

He is arguing that the right not to be offended by something is so important that it should cancel out any other rights that might come into play.

Is he? From your perspective he is, but somehow I doubt the same is true from his. Also, just as nobody has a right not to be offended, everybody has the right to express offense.

hatrickpatrick

RWCNT wrote: »

What on earth does that T-shirt have to do with social justice?

Nothing at all, but then neither do SJWs. SJWs as a term, now refers to those who believe that campaigns to force people to self-censor, or to force their platform provider to censor them, are a good thing - whether that censorship has anything to do with social justice or not.

It's essentially the latter of the following two reactions, "that's pretty offensive, Jaysus" and "that's pretty offensive, and I don't think they should be allowed to get away with it".

hatrickpatrick

K4t wrote: »

Freedom of speech also includes the right to complain and bitch about a shirt slogan.

It does, and it includes the right to demand that something be censored - but that doesn't mean you can't be called an asshole for doing so.

darkpagandeath

Je suis Shirt....

FactCheck

SantryRed wrote: »

Your point about Mad Men makes absolutely zero sense. You're talking in a hindsight point of view before anything has even happened. That's not possible?

I'm not sure what you don't understand. The core of my point is that "sometimes events overtake you". When TK Maxx decided to stock this tshirt, they probably didn't know that "Je suis Charlie" was going to become a meme. Likewise in the fictional Mad Men storyline, Don Draper didn't know when he pitched a revolutionary advertising campaign that Marilyn Monroe would die before it launched.

If you run a big business, you anticipate that sometimes stuff like this will happen, you can't predict it, you just have to take the hit. Public opinion is overwhelmingly sympathetic and respectful of the Charlie Hebdo situation, and a newspaper headline along the lines of "TK Maxx says lol its just a joke, go fcuk yourselves SJWs", while appealing to a handful of armchair internet warriors, would be completely against their brand. So they say "so sorry, all arranged before this happened, obviously we can no longer sell this".

There's a popular clothing company that makes money from a range of tshirts and hoodies celebrating surfing and California beach towns. If the Big One hits tomorrow and one of those towns gets swamped by a tsunami, that retailer is going to have to pulp a bunch of its stock. It's just the way things work.

I have to admit I'm not really seeing the whole "SJW" angle here as I would have thought the SJW stereotype was more that they would be falling over themselves to make excuses for terrorists and condemn offensive publications like Charlie Hebdo, but whatever.

This isn't anything new, it isn't anything to do with offence, this is a hazard of retail and every large company has a certain allowance for this built in to the bottom line. It's a bit hysterical to see this as a Sign Of The Times when it was ever thus and it won't be changing any time soon. Multinational companies have an economic interest in seeming responsible and respectful and they'll gladly dump a single tshirt to preserve their far more valuable public image.

Herpes Cineplex

Wright wrote: »

Oh man I would've bought me one of those.

Me too, just to cause some further outrage.

SantryRed

FactCheck wrote: »

I'm not sure what you don't understand. The core of my point is that "sometimes events overtake you". When TK Maxx decided to stock this tshirt, they probably didn't know that "Je suis Charlie" was going to become a meme. Likewise in the fictional Mad Men storyline, Don Draper didn't know when he pitched a revolutionary advertising campaign that Marilyn Monroe would die before it launched.

If you run a big business, you anticipate that sometimes stuff like this will happen, you can't predict it, you just have to take the hit. Public opinion is overwhelmingly sympathetic and respectful of the Charlie Hebdo situation, and a newspaper headline along the lines of "TK Maxx says lol its just a joke, go fcuk yourselves SJWs", while appealing to a handful of armchair internet warriors, would be completely against their brand. So they say "so sorry, all arranged before this happened, obviously we can no longer sell this".

There's a popular clothing company that makes money from a range of tshirts and hoodies celebrating surfing and California beach towns. If the Big One hits tomorrow and one of those towns gets swamped by a tsunami, that retailer is going to have to pulp a bunch of its stock. It's just the way things work.

I have to admit I'm not really seeing the whole "SJW" angle here as I would have thought the SJW stereotype was more that they would be falling over themselves to make excuses for terrorists and condemn offensive publications like Charlie Hebdo, but whatever.

This isn't anything new, it isn't anything to do with offence, this is a hazard of retail and every large company has a certain allowance for this built in to the bottom line. It's a bit hysterical to see this as a Sign Of The Times when it was ever thus and it won't be changing any time soon. Multinational companies have an economic interest in seeming responsible and respectful and they'll gladly dump a single tshirt to preserve their far more valuable public image.

YEah, but you don't anticipate it. You react to an event when it occurs

FactCheck

SantryRed wrote: »

YEah, but you don't anticipate it. You react to an event when it occurs

Well, you anticipate it in that you factor the risk of this into your costs at the beginning. A big retailer like Tk Maxx or Primark might figure that two or three items a year might suddenly have to be pulled purely for image reasons. They try to avoid it by having employees whose job it is to check that the new Halloween tshirt for toddlers doesn't use a font that makes "Boooooo!" look like "BOOOOOOBS!" but they recognise that when you handle the volume of products they do, something inappropriate will make its way onto the shop floor now and then.

And they're being criticised for reacting to this event the same way every similar retailer reacts to these events - by saying "whoops, we didn't realise, so sorry, its gone now". I think previous posters on this thread are being unrealistic and hysterical by making out that retailers are overreacting or intimidated by "SJWs" or whatever the boogeyman is - this is just business as usual for a large retailer.

If anything, the cost of withdrawing the product is partially offset by articles like this. Most normal people don't read about "BOOBS!" tshirts or references to Charlie Hebdo and become irate and angry like boards posters or Journal.ie commenters apparently do. They grin and then move on with their day. TK Maxx gets an "advertisement" in the sense that they've been namedropped to thousands of readers and most of those readers thought well of them at the end of the story.