In a quandary...

Kitten Kong

Kitten Kong

Administrator
Staff member
Reaction score
3,411
Location
Manchester UK
hi everyone.

im in a bit of a predicament.

the local mag i write for and advertise in has dropped a major bollock.

the guy who deals with the advertising, emailed a potential client with "typical of a paki wanting something for nothing".

this email was supposed to be sent to the owner ( a guy i know).

now this groups page is erupting with comments over the post.

calls for advertisers to drop their ads etc.

members dont want to read the mag etc. it'll get binned or burned.

now im thinking, about stopping my writing of the column, and stopping my standing advertisement ( even though i don't pay for it).

however, i do get the vast majority of my business from this mag.

im abhorred by the racist comment. tje editor himself is fuming over it.

im not sure what to do.

any comments or advice, most welcome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PC and liberal BS doesn't sell. They make the loudest ruckus, but that doesn't mean that their outbursts will result in lower sales (or that they'll buy something just because it's PC). I'd stick it out. I'm sorry that people are so sensitive these days and get butthurt over every little thing. People have different opinions. Live with it.
 
It’s surprising when people in business use racially-charged language in an email, even to a colleague. Even if you agree with the sentiments, it seems both risky and unprofessional.

But, these things have a habit of blowing over. If I were you, since you’ve done nothing wrong and you rely on the exposure it gives your business, I would be inclined to wait it out and see what happens.
 
sapphirescales said:
PC and liberal BS doesn't sell. They make the loudest ruckus, but that doesn't mean that their outbursts will result in lower sales (or that they'll buy something just because it's PC). I'd stick it out. I'm sorry that people are so sensitive these days and get butthurt over every little thing. People have different opinions. Live with it.
Click to expand...
I agree, and to add: It will be a matter of days before someone else does something that hurts their feelings and nobody will remember the magazine.

Classic example is Nike and their ad. I vowed to never buy Nike again, but my new shoes purchased says otherwise. I got over it, and I reckon they will too.
 
wavey said:
As you know the owner you should talk to him and make clear your disapproval of such racist language and sentiments. Maybe suggest an editorial apology to the readers and advertisers.
Click to expand...

I think that's a good idea. It might calm down the mob.




I don't condone racism in the least but I find the whole situation a bit ridiculous these days. People are all too keen to get out their pitch forks, taking offence on someone else's behalf. Certainly the guy should not have wrote what he did but, in my opinion, it reflects only his own lack of professionalism. It's not really a hurtful or offensive comment and the magazine shouldn't be held responsible for an employee's opinions/experience, which is what he was expressing.

Of course he shouldn't have used the abbreviated form of Pakistani (though I've no idea exactly how/when that became offensive, considering it's fine to use similar abbreviations like Aussie, Brit, etc) but his comment isn't so much racist as a sweeping generalisation. If he had said the same about a Yorkshireman or Scot, nobody would've batted an eyelid, in fact most people that I know who are from Yorkshire/Scotland seem proud of their frugal reputation.

Being from the north of England myself, I've known many Asian people personally and, in my experience, they would not take offence at such comments either. I have Asian friends and customers. I've socialised and worked with Asian people for years and, guess what, they have a sense of humour, just like the rest us humans. Having said all that, it was still wrong of him to say what he did, but peoples' overreactions are worse. Yes we need to stomp out racism, but to be oversensitive towards other races is to treat them differently. And when that special treatment feels like walking on eggshells, they become excluded.
 
Last edited:
Trump has proven once and for all that there is no such thing as bad publicity. The ruckus will likely increase readership, and your exposure. The best part is you get to ride this wave with no ethical worries because you didn't screw up! Relax, enjoy it.
 
ive spoken to the owner and editor.

the other guy is resigning with immediate effect.

December's mag has just gone to print.

that will be the last mag.

a new mag will be starting up in Jan. with the owner doing everything apart from the graphics design.

ive been asked to continue with the articles, as they get a lot of feedback from them and the community likes them, which is fine with me.

thanks everyone.
 
As I was reading this I had to say it would depend on what was said and the general public reaction. In most cases, I would be pulling my support. It doesn't matter if you fire the guy, people still remember that you hired the guy in the first place. Also from what I have seen the smaller the circulation the more harm it does. If the mag is folding up to rebrand itself because of it I'd say that it was a serious issue.

If you are going to write for the "new" magazine then make sure you change the name of your column. Too easy to seem to be retreading a bald tire if you are the same program under a new name. It will be seen as just a whitewash.
 
Yeah, just keep it at arms length. Obviously if anyone asks you're going to express your disappointment/disapproval. I'd not write anything about it assuming your column has nothing to do with politics, racism, cultures, etc.

I'm still amazed at how people will attribute common behaviors to certain groups when they are practiced by everyone.
 
Moltuae said:
Of course he shouldn't have used the abbreviated form of Pakistani (though I've no idea exactly how/when that became offensive, considering it's fine to use similar abbreviations like Aussie, Brit, etc)
Click to expand...

I don't think it's the word "Paki" that offends - people from Pakistan don't get offended by it.

What causes offence is when people from India are called a "Paki" - because they're not from Pakistan - and also because India and Pakistan do not like each other.

Pakistani people see it as a shortened country name - just like the British are not offended by being called Brit's and Australians are not offended by being called Aussies.

People from India are offended because they view the word "Paki" as being derogatory and insulting.
 
I'm sooooooo sick and tired of people calling everything "racist." It's only racist if you show contempt for ALL members of a particular race. Christmas trees are NOT racist. Neither is not wanting unchecked immigration into your country (or wanting to keep your sovereignty and disallow ALL immigration). People have different opinions and think differently. Just because they think differently than you do doesn't make them a "racist."

And yeah, thinking that there are a lot of criminals illegally crossing the border is NOT racist. The truth of the matter is, there's no other way for criminals to cross the border. If a known criminal attempted to cross the border legally, they'd be deported. So not EVERYONE that's trying to cross the border illegally is a criminal, but there are a higher percentage of criminals among those trying to cross the border illegally compared to legally.

You MUST know WHO is trying to cross the border. If you don't then you'll invite crime and poverty into your country. Merit based immigration is the way things should be. If you have NO skills and have no desire to work, then you can stay where you are. If you're intelligent and actually have something to OFFER your new country, then come on in! I don't slave my a$$ off every day so that I can give welfare to every lazy idiot that wants free sh*t. We have enough leechers here already. We don't need any more.
 
Someone once told me; "You're friends are the ones coming IN the door, when everyone else is going out."

Wait and see what the Editor does. His actions will tell you whether you want to be in or out. Employees do stupid things. It's how they handle this which will reveal the character of the publication, and whether you wish to be associated with it.
 
Briggsy said:
I don't think it's the word "Paki" that offends - people from Pakistan don't get offended by it.

What causes offence is when people from India are called a "Paki" - because they're not from Pakistan - and also because India and Pakistan do not like each other.

Pakistani people see it as a shortened country name - just like the British are not offended by being called Brit's and Australians are not offended by being called Aussies.

People from India are offended because they view the word "Paki" as being derogatory and insulting.
Click to expand...

I once had a discussion about that (and other interesting cultural subjects, such as Hinduism) with an Indian customer that I have known for many years. He told me that he didn't actually mind being called a 'Paki' because the word translates to 'clean' or 'pure'. And while he didn't particularly like being mistaken for someone from Pakistan, to him that was not really any worse than say a Canadian being mistaken for someone from the US, or a Brit being mistaken for an Aussie, etc.

He's a first generation Indian guy who came to Britain in the 1970s, so he has experienced 'real' racism. I'm talking about physical attacks on his property and verbal abuse, not just the stereotyping that we're seeing here which, let's face it, we all participate in one form or another. It's just human nature. Whether it's through our own experiences or from what we're told, we develop a profile in our minds of what someone from that nation, or even region, is 'typically' like, be it a Brit, Aussie, American, Scouser, Texan, Scot etc, etc. But even if there's any truth in the origin of the stereotypical profiles, at best they represent an 'average' of some people from that region. At worst, they're outdated stereotypes that represent a select few, a fact that anyone with even an ounce of intelligence will be fully aware of, reserving their use for humorous purposes only.

I think it's good that there are national/regional/cultural differences, and that the differences should be recognised and celebrated. The problem is that, because some people choose to direct hatred at a particular group/race, we try to stop it by pretending that those differences don't exist instead of trying to stop the hatred.

Imagine, for example, Australians were not white (or were in some other way noticeably different, such as an extra head or leg maybe) and they suddenly started emigrating to Britain in their thousands (for the better weather, or whatever reason ;) ). Hatred and resentment would start to grow and there would come a point when phrases like 'F**king Aussies' would start being used offensively by those who felt in some way threatened or displaced by the immigrants from down-under. Now imagine that we try to resolve this, not by stopping the aggression towards this minority group and making it wrong to aggressively prepend 'Aussie' with expletives, but instead by making the word 'Aussie' offensive and pretending that Aussies were just like us. Sound familiar?

I find it ridiculous how we continue to outlaw perfectly normal words because they're deemed offensive, not because the words themselves are offensive but because of the offensive way in which they have previously been used. Retarded, for example, was once a perfectly acceptable medical term to describe a mental condition/disability. The word spastic, is another example: Growing up in 70s/80s Britain, we had a charity known as the Spastics Society, with shops in every town, proudly displaying the name. It was a perfectly acceptable word back in the day but some people began to use it offensively. Like the word 'retard' it was rarely directed at anyone with such a disability, but used as a derogatory term of offence to imply retarded or spastic like behaviour in someone with no such disability. The Spastic Society eventually changed its name to Scope as a result. I wonder how long it'll be before scope becomes an offensive word.

Point being, they're all just words. It's how the words are used that matters.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top