Primark removes racist t-shirt

[Jockney]

The t-shirt is a reference to one fantastic episode of television in a programme which is otherwise popular but average - nothing more, nothing less, in my view. All of this about normalising racial slogans, street violence and the power of language is a great argument but not for me. Lots of fantastic words which convey cool meaning, but very ivory tower ish.

Edit: it's just a t-shirt

If you're gonna reply, don't cop-out. You've read it a certain way and that is a valid interpretation, and one I don't disagree with necessarily, but it's fairly obvious that the shirt itself draws on and reflects more than one particular meaning, and that the presentation is ambiguous enough that it can be read a number of different ways. This is coming from someone who has seen the first five seasons of TWD and wouldn't have had any idea of the context of the shirt without someone bringing my attention to it.

The spectacle of stylised violence is another, related matter and maybe not something that seems particularly important, but it seems like you can't even talk critically about this sort of stuff without people inferring that you're advocating censorship.

 

[Jockney]

you must be a hoot to have a bit of chit chat with over a bite to eat Jockney...ffs..........

I'm a massive, pious bore and you're a self-centred, narrow-minded man-child. Welcome to the forums.

 

[Stevencc]

The man behind the quote has spoken:

I'm not sure we should be taking moral guidance from a leather-clad loony brandishing a baseball bat.

 

[Stringy]

Not intending to cop-out. That's my view on your post. I can understand that the meaning could be misunderstood. But if you've read the unintended meaning you should just draw a line under it and admit that you misinterpreted the meaning. The designer wasn't making a reference to Jim Crow or anything like that - it was just an innocent mistake. The shirt has been turned into a battleground and it shouldn't have been.

 

[Jockney]

Not intending to cop-out. That's my view on your post. I can understand that the meaning could be misunderstood. But if you've read the unintended meaning you should just draw a line under it and admit that you misinterpreted the meaning. The designer wasn't making a reference to Jim Crow or anything like that - it was just an innocent mistake. The shirt has been turned into a battleground and it shouldn't have been.

I don't seriously think the intent was racist, obviously. I'm talking about effects and the point where the original intent becomes so far removed from its context that it can be easily read in another way, especially when the imagery is so starkly violent.

 

[Leo]

I'm a massive, pious bore and you're a self-centred, narrow-minded man-child. Welcome to the forums.

you got that half correct....the first half I may add.....

No welcome required, the pleasure is all yours.....

 

[Stringy]

I don't seriously think the intent was racist, obviously. I'm talking about effects and the point where the original intent becomes so far removed from its context that it can be easily read in another way, especially when the imagery is so starkly violent.

I know what you mean. I think to be discussing its effects though you have to be removing it so far from its original, intended context that it's no longer fruitful to discuss it.

 

[appletablepenny]

When I was a primary school kid (1970s Northern England), that rhyme always went "catch a baby by its toe". I genuinely never heard the offending version until I saw Pulp Fiction.

 

[Abertawe]

I don't seriously think the intent was racist, obviously. I'm talking about effects and the point where the original intent becomes so far removed from its context that it can be easily read in another way, especially when the imagery is so starkly violent.

So if anyone infers context in just about anything that they deem offensive you would advocate it's censorship even if you don't personally believe it's offending. Bonkers. And you wonder why the likes of trump & farage have stolen a march. It's because of people like you. Most people are sick to the backteeth of this authoritarian liberal nonsense.

 

[Jockney]

So if anyone infers context in just about anything that they deem offensive you would advocate it's censorship even if you don't personally believe it's offending. Bonkers. And you wonder why the likes of trump & farage have stolen a march. It's because of people like you. Most people are sick to the backteeth of this authoritarian liberal nonsense.

That is the exact opposite of what I said. Take a breather and try again.

 

[Abertawe]

That is the exact opposite of what I said. Take a breather and try again.

No it isn't. You may not want to nail your colours to the mast but you're most definitely advocating censorship. The shirt was pulled on the basis someone decided their interpretation of the context mattered more than the actual context because their interpretation led to them being offended. You've already said you have no problem with the person who got the shirts censored in the first place yet you won't admit to advocating censorship despite that declaration of support.

People have a right to find offence in the shirt but that's as far as it goes. Once something has been censored as a result of interpretation then any defence of that interpretation becomes a justification of the censorship by default. You're defending the why therefore the case aka you are advocating the censorship.

I suspect the reason you won't admit it is because you know your position is pretty contradictory especially when you've already called out right wingers despite the source of the story being that of an authoritarian liberal enforcing their values onto others and curtailing freedoms.

 

[Jockney]

No it isn't. You may not want to nail your colours to the mast but you're most definitely advocating censorship. The shirt was pulled on the basis someone decided their interpretation of the context mattered more than the actual context because their interpretation led to them being offended. You've already said you have no problem with the person who got the shirts censored in the first place yet you won't admit to advocating censorship despite that declaration of support.

People have a right to find offence in the shirt but that's as far as it goes. Once something has been censored as a result of interpretation then any defence of that interpretation becomes a justification of the censorship by default. You're defending the why therefore the case aka you are advocating the censorship.

I suspect the reason you won't admit it is because you know your position is pretty contradictory especially when you've already called out right wingers despite the source of the story being that of an authoritarian liberal enforcing their values onto others and curtailing freedoms.

making a complaint to a private body about something you find offensive isn't censorship. Similarly being critical of a particular instance of expression isn't advocating censorship, otherwise your offence to other people taking offence would be an indirect call for censorship.

I am against state intervention into freedom of expression. Whether individuals and private bodies want either to allow or refuse platform for that expression is their prerogative, but that comes with the right of protest and criticism.