Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Paddy Power Transphobic Ad,

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    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....


  • Options
    #153
    Pacifist Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    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.


  • Options
    #154
    Strawberry Fields
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Strawberry Fields


    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.


  • Options
    #155
    Shakti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Shakti


    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.

    long-run-300x224.jpg

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


  • Options
    #156
    Pacifist Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,880 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #158
    Pacifist Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    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.


  • Options
    #159
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,880 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #160
    Pacifist Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    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.


  • Options
    #161
    Strawberry Fields
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Strawberry Fields


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    anotherlostie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭anotherlostie


    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?


  • Options
    #163
    deirdre_dub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭deirdre_dub


    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.


  • Options
    #164
    baby and crumble
    Registered Users Posts: 8,512 ✭✭✭baby and crumble


    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.


  • Options
    #165
    eaglach
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭eaglach


    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.


  • Options
    #166
    eaglach
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭eaglach


    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.


  • Options
    #167
    Shakti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Shakti


    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?


  • Options
    #168
    G.K.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭G.K.


    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?


  • Options
    #169
    deirdre_dub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭deirdre_dub


    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.


  • Options
    #170
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    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.


  • Options
    #171
    Pacifist Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    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).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.


  • Options
    #173
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    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.


  • Options
    #174
    Shakti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Shakti


    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


  • Options
    #175
    L.Jenkins
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 19,240 Mod ✭✭✭✭L.Jenkins


    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?


  • Options
    #176
    eaglach
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭eaglach


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


  • Options
    #177
    G.K.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭G.K.


    Do you not read our responses to you?


  • Options
    #178
    Pacifist Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭Pacifist Pigeon


    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.


  • Options
    #179
    anotherlostie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭anotherlostie


    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.


  • Options
    #180
    Shakti
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,153 ✭✭✭Shakti


    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)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    SuziQ
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭SuziQ


    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


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement