[Dakarʒ]

Maybe Helena-Bohnam Carter Off-white.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by forkies 

Bulletin board supervisor faces charges for not deleting message calling girl 'ugly'

That's a hoax, right?

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I'm German born and a naturalized American citizen. If I bought a couch that was cabbage colored and found a label on it that said it was kraut colored (kraut = cabbage, and kraut is also a word sometimes used to describe Germans), I would point it out to the manufacturer, who I'm sure would apologize, and then I would rip the label off, get myself a Guinness, and watch TV. I certainly wouldn't intimate to my friends that they shouldn't sit on my couch because of a stupid label.

And would your reaction be the same if the couch was labeled, say, Nazi grey? Fascist brown?
"Kraut" is a pretty mild epithet. I wouldn't equate it with "the N word."

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

And would your reaction be the same if the couch was labeled, say, Nazi grey? Fascist brown?
"Kraut" is a pretty mild epithet. I wouldn't equate it with "the N word."

They're both the strongest epithets against their respective races. The reason it seems more "mild" is just because Germans don't fly into a tizzy whenever somebody fails to kiss their ass sufficiently. (I'm not saying all blacks do either, but the self-appointed "black leaders" tend to be kind of emo drama queens who want to whip people into a frenzy, which is not true of actual German leaders.)

[malvolio]

^^^
So you're saying a German would be more offended by being called a Kraut than a Nazi?
I don't buy it.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

How 'bout "Cracka Beige"

Or 'Azn Pride Yellow' or something. They could make a whole pallete of hilarious colors.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

^^^
So you're saying a German would be more offended by being called a Kraut than a Nazi?
I don't buy it.

I'm saying "Nazi" is universally offensive and isn't factually accurate in most cases. That is to say, it isn't a racial slur.

[Kevin]

I can't believe 5 different people claim she has a right to sue for money.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Or 'Azn Pride Yellow' or something. They could make a whole pallete of hilarious colors.

Yellow expresses too much emotion IMO.

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm saying "Nazi" is universally offensive and isn't factually accurate in most cases. That is to say, it isn't a racial slur.

Totally beside the point. The term "Nazi" has a unique historical association with Germany, and I'm willing to bet it is more offensive to Germans than the term "Kraut."

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

And would your reaction be the same if the couch was labeled, say, Nazi grey? Fascist brown?
"Kraut" is a pretty mild epithet. I wouldn't equate it with "the N word."

I'd want to find out how that happened, and make sure that it was corrected, but I wouldn't sue anybody over it. That doesn't mean I'd jump for joy, but it wouldn't be the first time in my long life that I've been called a nasty name, and it probably won't be the last.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I'd want to find out how that happened, and make sure that it was corrected, but I wouldn't sue anybody over it. That doesn't mean I'd jump for joy, but it wouldn't be the first time in my long life that I've been called a nasty name, and it probably won't be the last.

^ This is what we call a "reasonable adult reaction."

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by faragbre967 

Next we'll have homosexuals offended by old songs when they say "happy and gay." The lawsuits are getting pathetic.

That's it! I'm suing Herman's Hermits!

No milk today, it wasn't always so
The company was , we'd turn night into day

[malvolio]

Here's how I look at it: If the company was so freakin' careless as to let a nasty racial slur slide by, then they deserve to pay a big heaping pile of cash, to help teach them to be more careful in the future.

What about the Chinese company that exported all that poisoned wheat gluten that killed thousands of pets and has now apparently been fed to hogs destined for human consumption? Should they be sued?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

Here's how I look at it: If the company was so freakin' careless as to let a nasty racial slur slide by, then they deserve to pay a big heaping pile of cash, to help teach them to be more careful in the future.

What about the Chinese company that exported all that poisoned wheat gluten that killed thousands of pets and has now apparently been fed to hogs destined for human consumption? Should they be sued?

Are you seriously comparing the death of thousands of animals to a few tags with a culturally misunderstood racial epitaph? Wow.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

Here's how I look at it: If the company was so freakin' careless as to let a nasty racial slur slide by, then they deserve to pay a big heaping pile of cash, to help teach them to be more careful in the future

Think about what you are saying: If anything you say in this thread offends me (doesn't actually hurt me, just makes me feel real bad), you deserve to pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars. Does that really sound fair to you? Really?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

Here's how I look at it: If the company was so freakin' careless as to let a nasty racial slur slide by, then they deserve to pay a big heaping pile of cash, to help teach them to be more careful in the future.

What about the Chinese company that exported all that poisoned wheat gluten that killed thousands of pets and has now apparently been fed to hogs destined for human consumption? Should they be sued?

There’s a very big difference between those two, not only in the level of their magnitude: wheat gluten, as all foodstuffs, are subject to rigid control and scrutiny, and there are very strict rules about what is and is not allowed to be in it; obviously, anything poisonous is on the ‘not allowed’ list, and exporting or selling the gluten was illegal to begin with. Of course they should be fined (though perhaps not necessarily sued by private persons).

While there’s strict regulations on labels as well, I don’t think they extend to controlling which words are or are not appropriate to describe the colour of various types of furniture. No laws were broken here, simply a very unfortunate word used. I agree the company that sells this furniture have to learn a lesson to be more careful in the future—but with all the publicity this has created, I think they’ve learned that lesson by now. I certainly don’t think this particular woman has any reason to get a buckload of money for it. If the company should be made to pay for their mistake in cool cash, they should do as a fine to some sort of furniture authority (not sure what authority exactly that would be), not to some random customer who just happened to be the one who made a ruckus about it.

I think these customers have every right to pursue this through the Human Rights Commission. I don't think this is worth a million dollars or anything, but the HRC was set up to deal with these kind of things. Selling products with derogatory labeling isn't much different than denying service. (What?! He wouldn't sell you a cup of coffee?! Cause you're black?! Get over it!! It's not slavery or anything!!)

It’s completely different. Denying someone service because they’re black is a purposeful, voluntary, deliberate act of discrimination. Not noticing that a product sold has a label that contains a word that’s offensive to black people is a purposeless, involuntary, unintentional act of discrimination. They’re complete opposites.

If you wish to use the café analogy, it’s more like selling the coffee to the black person, and then having the black person accidentally discover that your coffee supplier is called “N*gga Black Coffee” or something like that. They’re still not quite comparable, since no café would use a supplier with that name; but as close as it gets.

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Think about what you are saying: If anything you say in this thread offends me (doesn't actually hurt me, just makes me feel real bad), you deserve to pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars. Does that really sound fair to you? Really?

False analogy. I'm not a company selling you a product.
But if you want to try it, I'll give you some ammo. IMO, you aren't very intelligent.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Are you seriously comparing the death of thousands of animals to a few tags with a culturally misunderstood racial epitaph? Wow.

That's what I was thinking too. WOW. Just wow...

[andi*pandi]

they had a right to be mad. They even might be justified in getting a different couch for free. or a matching loveseat! And the store should have offered some kind of discount. But a lawsuit... is over the top.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

Here's how I look at it: If the company was so freakin' careless as to let a nasty racial slur slide by, then they deserve to pay a big heaping pile of cash, to help teach them to be more careful in the future.

What about the Chinese company that exported all that poisoned wheat gluten that killed thousands of pets and has now apparently been fed to hogs destined for human consumption? Should they be sued?

The mislabeling of the couch tag was an accident of translation. Haven't you ever seen any of the product labels that are hard to understand because the translators aren't versed in fluent English? It was an accident; one that caused some minor discomfort, but an accident nonethless. Get over it. Move on.

Your attempt to compare the first incident to the second you post above merits very little discussion other to say that you obviously can't see the difference in upsetting someone and possibly harming them.

[SpaceMonkey]

As for the woman who is worried that the issue is "taking a toll" on her family, and whose friends won't sit on her couch -- why can't she just remove the label? Problem solved.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

As for the woman who is worried that the issue is "taking a toll" on her family, and whose friends won't sit on her couch -- why can't she just remove the label? Problem solved.

How is she supposed to make any money that way?

[Oisín]

As for the woman who is worried that the issue is "taking a toll" on her family, and whose friends won't sit on her couch -- why can't she just remove the label? Problem solved.

Ah, but the knowledge, SpaceMonkey, the knowledge that there used to be a label on the couch with such a horrible word on it... that knowledge will burn in the entire family’s minds for all eternity!

Also, how would she go about removing the label? Touching it would obviously burn and char her hands and the demons would possess her flesh and fester in her body till no more than a vapid carcass of evil was left.

This family’s lives are ruined—RUINED, I tell you!

[climber]

I think if it is money she wants, she should but said couch up for sale on Ebay. I think it would get bid up pretty quick.

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Your attempt to compare the first incident to the second you post above merits very little discussion other to say that you obviously can't see the difference in upsetting someone and possibly harming them.

Obviously I did not communicate clearly what I meant by that comparison. I was not trying to equate the two incidents, only to point out that they had certain common elements. I look on them as opposite ends of a continuum, one being a very minor instance and the other being a freaking huge instance.
My apologies for the confusion.

[OldManMac]

No problem, and no need to apologize.

[Tiresias]

Too sensitive, for the simple reason that the whole thing is plainly a mistake.

Worse re the whole n-word moral panic thing going on at the moment, are suggestions that the word "niggardly" should be avoided because it sounds like the n-word. Like, wtf? Shakespeare uses that word in his first sonnet. It has nothing to do with the n-word.

Ahhhh! Political correctness is getting out of hand! And to me, it's a part of the problem because it brings racial differences into sharp relief when everybody has to tip-toe around racial issues. I'm white, and when I was at school in NZ I called my Maori friends n----rs and they called me a honky and we all cracked up—the ultimate proof that the race thing just didn't matter to us.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

False analogy. I'm not a company selling you a product.

How does that make a difference? At best, she deserves to be allowed to return the couch. At worse, she deserves to have them tell her "Caveat emptor" and hang up the phone. Anything more would just be the company being nice.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

Too sensitive, for the simple reason that the whole thing is plainly a mistake.

Worse re the whole n-word moral panic thing going on at the moment, are suggestions that the word "niggardly" should be avoided because it sounds like the n-word. Like, wtf? Shakespeare uses that word in his first sonnet. It has nothing to do with the n-word.

Ahhhh! Political correctness is getting out of hand! And to me, it's a part of the problem because it brings racial differences into sharp relief when everybody has to tip-toe around racial issues. I'm white, and when I was at school in NZ I called my Maori friends n----rs and they called me a honky and we all cracked up—the ultimate proof that the race thing just didn't matter to us.

Off topic.

[CleoW]

No, they are not being over-sensitive. They just want to make money; it's a sue-happy world.