This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Who overreacted here?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
Is it really censorship? If it's a decision on Discovery's part, they're just adjusting the product to the local audience.
Edit to MyTie's question: Everyone. Everyone over reacted.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Who overreacted here?
I'm going to go with: Lowes overreacted.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
Huh, a 'media outlet' can do censorship, according to Wikipedia. I thought it had to be a government.
Edit: I should be clearer. Obviously media outlets can not impart any information they find to be politically objectionable. But it's not being stifled in the country. One media outlet can't stop another from imparting that information elsewhere in the country. The ability to stop others from saying things seems restricted to the government, and I thought the ability to do that was part of the definition of censorship.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Who overreacted here?
I'm going to go with: Lowes overreacted.
Oh? How is that? Do you know why they pulled the ads?
If they pulled them from religious bigotry, then yes, if they pulled them because they wanted to try a different form of advertising, then that state senator overreacted, when he threatened boycott, legislation, investigation, screamed for an apology, and outreach on the part of Lowes.
I think it's amazing that you don't even know why they pulled the ads, but you already think they overreacted. Or were you being sarcastic?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ MyTie - This is from the article YOU linked:
The Florida group sent three emails to its members, asking them to petition Lowe's to pull its advertising. Its website was updated to say that "supporters' emails to advertisers make a difference."
The North Carolina-based Lowe's issued a statement apologizing for having "managed to make some people very unhappy."
"Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lightning rod for many of those views," the statement said. "As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance."
Lowe's official statement was that they pulled the ads in response to the strong opinions of individuals and groups who were using this show as a "lightning" rod for the issue. It wasn't because they wanted to try something else. In their own words, they were doing it in response to the people who were upset about the show.
Post by
MyTie
Lowe's official statement was that they pulled the ads in response to the strong opinions of individuals and groups who were using this show as a "lightning" rod for the issue. It wasn't because they wanted to try something else. In their own words, they were doing it in response to the people who were upset about the show.
Yeah, that's what they said. But, you don't know if it is really about bigotry, or if they just want to avoid the lightning rod. The show is a lightning rod of controversy. I wouldn't want my business near the tinderbox either. It seems like that is the reason they are being punished, for perceived anti Muslim biases, even if they aren't there at all. Are your thoughts seriously that Lowes overreacted? I'm not trying to mock that view, but just need to understand if you were being sarcastic or not so I know how to address you on this topic.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ MyTie
I think that Lowes made a knee jerk reaction to some nasty e-mails from an group of people with extreme views, that has now alienated it from a larger portion of the population than it was trying to appease. I don't think that they were operating from a position of being bigoted themselves, but that they overestimated the negative results of having their ads on this show, and as a result made a poor both financially (I think this will cost them business), and morally (I think that caving into bigotry is always the wrong choice).
I think that it would be the equivalent of pulling your ads off of the Cosby show, because the KKK started a letter-writing campaign, and then saying that they felt that race relations was a controversial issue, and they didn't want to upset people who were anti-African American by advertising during a show about African Americans:
A) It's not that big a portion of the population, so your actual profits aren't going to drop by all that much even if they all stop shopping there.
B) In a country that is most of the time trying to move in a direction of more tolerance and not less, to take a public step backwards is not good PR, and it will be remembered long after this show is forgotten.
C) The show itself is specifically designed to show average families who are Muslim, living in America, going to school, working, having friends who are non-Muslim. It's designed to show "We're not all that different." It's supposed to help with people who have no familiarity with people who are Muslim, and imagine that they are like a different species rather than just normal people with a different cultural background. To make a statement that you refuse to support a show that is specifically meant to promote tolerance, because a few people don't want other people to become more tolerant, is a pretty sad moral choice to make.
EDIT: I don't think they should be criminally actionable in this, unless they broke a contract that they had. I think it's up to the public to hold them socially accountable in terms of boycotts, public denouncements, and the like.
Post by
MyTie
@ MyTie
-snip-
Perhaps they did overreact, and cave to bigotry. In that case, I think they were wrong. I think more than anything, they saw a nightmare firestorm on the horizon, and just wanted to get out of the way.
In any case, I think that the politician overreacted too. The things he is calling for are asinine. He sounds like he is ready to hang the CEO.
Post by
MyTie
Something mildly exciting
, but probably going to end anticlimaticly. After 4K years, they open the secret door to find..... nothing but an empty room with dust in it.... and we still have no idea what they are for, and we never will.
I feel like history is trolling me.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@ MyTie- I agree that the politician was trying to get some political momentum out of it, and none of the legal sanctions are really appropriate in this case.
Post by
MyTie
@ MyTie- I agree that the politician was trying to get some political momentum out of it, and none of the legal sanctions are really appropriate in this case.
Since we seem to agree... let's move on... You're thoughts on my newest link, Egypt?
Post by
Hunger
Something mildly exciting
, but probably going to end anticlimaticly. After 4K years, they open the secret door to find..... nothing but an empty room with dust in it.... and we still have no idea what they are for, and we never will.
I feel like history is trolling me.
It seems like they're just trying to find the purpose of some mysterious shafts that will probably not result in any particularly interesting discovery.
Post by
Orranis
Half of the pyramid is supposed to be just rooms for a Pharaoh to walk around in doing Pharaoh stuff, and the other half is literally just to confuse the ^&*! out of robbers, or alternatively scientists. So it kinda makes sense.
Post by
MyTie
Half of the pyramid is supposed to be just rooms for a Pharaoh to walk around in doing Pharaoh stuff, and the other half is literally just to confuse the ^&*! out of robbers, or alternatively scientists. So it kinda makes sense.
CERN is close to higgs boson, the last room of the great pyramids is to be opened, and we are on the verge of 2012. Coincidence?
Post by
Squishalot
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/developer-to-keep-twin-towers-design-20111212-1ortw.html
Apparently it's an offendable offense to build two square-based buildings side by side these days.
Post by
Jubilee
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/developer-to-keep-twin-towers-design-20111212-1ortw.html
Apparently it's an offendable offense to build two square-based buildings side by side these days.
At least be fair, it's not that they are square buildings that people are finding offensive, it's that they have a very unique design that can be taken to resemble the buildings exploding.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.