Undoubtedly a cultural landmark. 👏🫡 🏳️⚧️ Probably the first ever ad in India showing trans persons in a sensitive and normal way, that too by a major MNC. But the transphobic RW is trending #BoycottStarbucks and accusing Starbucks of virtue-signalling and wokeness. Unfortunately, certain "educated" Indian ▮▮▮ aunties are also joining in and mimicking Germaine Greer, JK Rowling etc. So looks like a redux of Western controversies in India in India. So are we witnessing the beginnings of a gender culture war in India, like in the West?
Good. Vibrant democracies don't bend over and let every new idea rail them from behind. Vibrant democracies disagree, question, dissent from notions promoted by large corporates. This is great. Couldn't see a better outcome than the questionind and resistance of corporatespeak. Why is this so disconcerting to you? Are you not for vibrant democracy? Are you only for whatever ideological label works for you?
Still don't see a counter-argument or proposal there, hence your comment is pleasantly published (but obviously still trollish).
The thesis was: "Trans people are people too and should be accepted by their families."
Unless you have an anti-thesis or sound argument to counter that statement, please don't respond with obfuscation. People should only have the right to challenge, question and dissent if they do so truthfully and in good faith. Anything else is abuse of those rights.
I do not trust anyone to be the arbiter of good faith, nor should anyone else. All speech, including that which may appear to some to be in bad faith or insulting, mocking, or derisive, must be permitted to foster a robus marketplace of ideas from which the common public derives their consensus.
One person may find a cartoon on a politician (Xi, Modi, Rahul) to be genuine dissent and another may find it to be an insult in bad faith. Likewise on other issues including gender politics. Good faith is subjective, and none are so pure as to be trusted as its arbiters. Hence, judgement over good or bad faith is an illegitimate restriction upon dissent and critique.
Of course, at the end of the day, this forum is a platform owned by someone, paid for by someone. That owner has final say on what they wish to pay to host on their property. No arguments there.
Thanks for your insight and thought-provoking points. I fear the policy you recommend is a tough one to implement in reality. If no decision can ever be objectively made on good faith, than moderation can not exist except for blocking outright illegal content. And that's how you get a place like 4chan/pol, which is not a very pleasant place to spend a lot of time in, even if it is an interesting experiment.
And would you really want LI convos to be a free-for-all where everyone constantly posts their Xi / Winnie-the-Pooh and Rahul and Modi memes and shitposts and AI generated fake image memes for the lulz, and pro and anti-trans memes and articles and YouTube shorts and so on. Aren't there other platforms where you can get such 'content'?
The key aim of online moderation is to encourage a sense of community and free and open discourse, but not with so much freedom / anarchy as to make the place too unpleasant to spend time in.
And while fighting out ideological battles may be interesting and important to some - and it is interesting to see some of the prevailing views on both sides of the spectrum - then let's at least agree to stick to verifiable facts and bona fide arguments when talking about politics, and that's actually not very hard to judge. 'Bad faith' is often not much harder to identify than obscenity or other primitive judicial tests by "you know it when you see it". Likewise, consistent (mis)use of obfuscation, straw-man, ad hominem or other bad-faith argumentative techniques or fallacies are often good evidence of bad faith and can be established fairly objectively.
Sure, some edge-cases are hard, but 99% of examples are fairly obvious. And crucially, allowing those 99% of bad faith comments would not actually contribute to an insightful discussion, would it?
I am saying that regardless of my beliefs on the issue, it is good that corporate virtue signalling is being readily questioned by our nation, even leaving aside the virtues momentarily.
Advertisement is the non-state, private-actor version of propaganda. It is meant to subliminally leave a mark, associate certain feelings towards the brand and manipulate you into buying the good(s)/service(s). In this case, it appears that the advertisement is intended to invoke associations in the viewer's mind between starbucks and a set of virtues (here it is queer affirmation, but that is immaterial, it could just as easily be any other ideal or virtue).
It is always nice to see a democracy question propaganda that it is fed, evaluate the realities independently and reject the associations that are shoved down it's throat.
My personal views on transgenders or gender poltics in general are beyond the scope of this discussion and this forum.
Glad to concur with the mods. We may, at times (and in jest), troll you, abuse you, disagree with you. But at the end of the day, we play in your yard.
In a free society, people have the right to decide what to purchase (within loose limits) and what not, for whatever reasons they may have. You make a poor attempt at deligimising their genuine exercise of this right by slandering them with the 'transphobe' label. That is reductive, oversimplistic, and demonstrates poor understanding of fundamental realities.
Disagreement with mainstream Western gender narratives is not phobia. Deciding against enriching a propagator of an idea you disagree with is not phobia either. These are rational, decent, civilized forms of voting with one's wallet. You do it yourself when you choose environmentally sensitive brands or boycott Harvey Weinstein.
I would be more ready to accept the 'phobia' label if, say, there were violent riots and arson on Starbucks property, or calls to ban the buisness.
Ah yes. Patriotic citizens of small developing country off the coast of Sri Lanka resist Big Trans Acceptance, thereby boosting domestic industries and forex reserves. A resounding win for the global south.
This is such a spectacular case of much ado about nothing.
Who is using Twitter as a barometer for India?
How many actual Indians use Twitter (except for some a very minor portion of our population)?
Is Twitter even relevant after Musk's takeover and content policy shifts that have left rampant abusive and misogynistic trolls become a disproprtionately loud voice on the platform?
Exactly. A rotten, corrupt corporate house puts on a woke disguise and Gen Z is instantly in awe of them!! Someone should suggest to Dow Chemicals to do an ad where a trans Hindu girl hugs a trans Muslim boy, and then Dhruv Rathee or Mahua Moitra appear on screen and say “Love Conquers Hate”. You will then see Gen Z instantly upvote Dow Chemicals on Instagram. 🙄
Moitra, yes. Dhruv? I doubt. He seems to have his heart in the right place, even if his virtues may not align with those who are more socially conservative. Or perhaps I am too naive.
Kids and teenagers who are constantly confused about everything will lead them to make these decisions for themselves based on the opinions of someone else for god knows what sorts of reasons. Let's keep this ▮▮▮ limited to the West.
Undoubtedly a cultural landmark. 👏🫡 🏳️⚧️ Probably the first ever ad in India showing trans persons in a sensitive and normal way, that too by a major MNC. But the transphobic RW is trending #BoycottStarbucks and accusing Starbucks of virtue-signalling and wokeness. Unfortunately, certain "educated" Indian ▮▮▮ aunties are also joining in and mimicking Germaine Greer, JK Rowling etc. So looks like a redux of Western controversies in India in India. So are we witnessing the beginnings of a gender culture war in India, like in the West?
https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/trends/story/too-woke-starbucks-faces-backlash-for-new-ad-in-india-heres-why-381024-2023-05-12
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/etimes/trending/boycott-starbucks-trends-on-twitter-the-brand-faces-backlash-for-transgender-ad/articleshow/100202118.cms?from=mdr
https://www.thequint.com/neon/social-buzz/starbucks-new-ad-showing-a-trans-woman-gets-mixed-reactions
https://www.news18.com/viral/boycott-starbucks-coffee-giant-receives-backlash-over-viral-ad-on-transgender-inclusion-7797721.html
Are you saying anything depicted in the ad is a bad idea, besides the potential Starbucks virtue-signalling cringe factor?
Or are you saying corporates jumping on bandwagons / pushing boundaries to advertise is bad?
Prior warning: only legitimate responses / attempts to engage will be published.
From your warning above, do we infer that you are against dissent?
I would be pleasantly surprised if you published this comment.
The thesis was: "Trans people are people too and should be accepted by their families."
Unless you have an anti-thesis or sound argument to counter that statement, please don't respond with obfuscation. People should only have the right to challenge, question and dissent if they do so truthfully and in good faith. Anything else is abuse of those rights.
One person may find a cartoon on a politician (Xi, Modi, Rahul) to be genuine dissent and another may find it to be an insult in bad faith. Likewise on other issues including gender politics. Good faith is subjective, and none are so pure as to be trusted as its arbiters. Hence, judgement over good or bad faith is an illegitimate restriction upon dissent and critique.
Of course, at the end of the day, this forum is a platform owned by someone, paid for by someone. That owner has final say on what they wish to pay to host on their property. No arguments there.
And would you really want LI convos to be a free-for-all where everyone constantly posts their Xi / Winnie-the-Pooh and Rahul and Modi memes and shitposts and AI generated fake image memes for the lulz, and pro and anti-trans memes and articles and YouTube shorts and so on. Aren't there other platforms where you can get such 'content'?
The key aim of online moderation is to encourage a sense of community and free and open discourse, but not with so much freedom / anarchy as to make the place too unpleasant to spend time in.
And while fighting out ideological battles may be interesting and important to some - and it is interesting to see some of the prevailing views on both sides of the spectrum - then let's at least agree to stick to verifiable facts and bona fide arguments when talking about politics, and that's actually not very hard to judge. 'Bad faith' is often not much harder to identify than obscenity or other primitive judicial tests by "you know it when you see it". Likewise, consistent (mis)use of obfuscation, straw-man, ad hominem or other bad-faith argumentative techniques or fallacies are often good evidence of bad faith and can be established fairly objectively.
Sure, some edge-cases are hard, but 99% of examples are fairly obvious. And crucially, allowing those 99% of bad faith comments would not actually contribute to an insightful discussion, would it?
Advertisement is the non-state, private-actor version of propaganda. It is meant to subliminally leave a mark, associate certain feelings towards the brand and manipulate you into buying the good(s)/service(s). In this case, it appears that the advertisement is intended to invoke associations in the viewer's mind between starbucks and a set of virtues (here it is queer affirmation, but that is immaterial, it could just as easily be any other ideal or virtue).
It is always nice to see a democracy question propaganda that it is fed, evaluate the realities independently and reject the associations that are shoved down it's throat.
My personal views on transgenders or gender poltics in general are beyond the scope of this discussion and this forum.
======================================================================
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/05/13/starbucks-advert-trans-boycott-india/
Disagreement with mainstream Western gender narratives is not phobia. Deciding against enriching a propagator of an idea you disagree with is not phobia either. These are rational, decent, civilized forms of voting with one's wallet. You do it yourself when you choose environmentally sensitive brands or boycott Harvey Weinstein.
I would be more ready to accept the 'phobia' label if, say, there were violent riots and arson on Starbucks property, or calls to ban the buisness.
Who is using Twitter as a barometer for India?
How many actual Indians use Twitter (except for some a very minor portion of our population)?
Is Twitter even relevant after Musk's takeover and content policy shifts that have left rampant abusive and misogynistic trolls become a disproprtionately loud voice on the platform?
In short - who gives a hoot.
Found this very interesting article.