The other person in the conversation seemed to suggest that the campaign was offensive to women, and that as a result I should be offended.
Personally I don't think you "should" be offended: offense is an unconscious emotional reaction beyond your control.
But in some cases I think you might be encouraged to complain, or empathise with another person's POV to see why they are offended. I think that they were hoping you would do is go "Ah! Now that you have explained your point of view to me, I agree that this poster is unjustifiably sexist, and the fact that PETA is willing to use this sort of imagery in their ads has lowered my opinion of them".
If nothing else, perhaps it makes those who hear th argument more aware of these issues and less likely to use such offensive imagery in their own marketing.
I make a very large distinction between "That which is ethical" and "that which makes money" :P
Also not being complicit in racism etc is not the same as being "considerate" or "nice". It's more like "basic human decency".
I might be taking you the wrong way, but what you're saying seems dangerously close to a call for censorship of works that are not considerate according to various guidelines you've laid down
No. I think all things being equal the world would be a better place if there were less of them. And I would achieve this by encouraging authors to try to write their works in a less offensive way. That's no more censorship than saying "I wish people wouldn't write in the first person". I think there are times when it's ok for an author to look at a work, recognise it has a dodgy subtext, and send it out into the world.
And if some wonderful works end up not being quite so wonderful because the author decided they didn't want to be racist or whatever, well to be honest I can live that, same way as I can live without art made from live tortured babies or something. I imagine you feel the same way about the fact that certain meals really are more delicious with meat.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Personally I don't think you "should" be offended: offense is an unconscious emotional reaction beyond your control.
But in some cases I think you might be encouraged to complain, or empathise with another person's POV to see why they are offended. I think that they were hoping you would do is go "Ah! Now that you have explained your point of view to me, I agree that this poster is unjustifiably sexist, and the fact that PETA is willing to use this sort of imagery in their ads has lowered my opinion of them".
If nothing else, perhaps it makes those who hear th argument more aware of these issues and less likely to use such offensive imagery in their own marketing.
I make a very large distinction between "That which is ethical" and "that which makes money" :P
Also not being complicit in racism etc is not the same as being "considerate" or "nice". It's more like "basic human decency".
I might be taking you the wrong way, but what you're saying seems dangerously close to a call for censorship of works that are not considerate according to various guidelines you've laid down
No. I think all things being equal the world would be a better place if there were less of them. And I would achieve this by encouraging authors to try to write their works in a less offensive way. That's no more censorship than saying "I wish people wouldn't write in the first person". I think there are times when it's ok for an author to look at a work, recognise it has a dodgy subtext, and send it out into the world.
And if some wonderful works end up not being quite so wonderful because the author decided they didn't want to be racist or whatever, well to be honest I can live that, same way as I can live without art made from live tortured babies or something. I imagine you feel the same way about the fact that certain meals really are more delicious with meat.