Social Networks Force Barilla Chairman To Apologize For His Anti-gay Remarks 456
ifchairscouldtalk writes "Pasta maker Barilla is in hot water over its chairman's anti-gay comments. Guido Barilla said his brand would 'never feature gays in ads' because Barilla does not agree with them. He added, '[if gay people] like our pasta and our advertising, they'll eat our pasta, if they don't like it then they will not eat it and they will eat another brand.' Vehement protest worldwide calling for a boycott of Barilla products via Twitter and Facebook forced the chairman to apologize with a video on Facebook."
It figures! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The best bit is the response by a competing company, Bertolli, who have managed to personify pasta shapes: http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/bertolli-makes-most-barilla-chairmans-anti-gay-comments-152758 [adweek.com]
FFS (Score:4, Insightful)
The guy is entitled to his opinion and to run the company as he wishes. If you don't like it don't buy it. Enough with the stupid fucking boycotts that are nothing but attempts at silencing free speech.
And wtf does a pasta makers stance on gays have to do with slashdot anyway? Can we stop pushing an agenda yet?
Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Choosing where I spend my money is violating someone else's free speech? What the fuck, dude?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Only when you're deciding to not hire someone.
Or when you're deciding not to photograph someone's wedding.
Or when you're deciding not to buy overpriced health insurance.
Then it's not your money or your labor and you'll be forced to pay and/or work against your will.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are a photographer, you cannot be forced or coerced to take photographs of somebody's wedding. That is your choice (the same would not be true, if you were a doctor, though). Purchasing health insurance is also a personal decision and who you decide to purchase it from does not violate anybody else's rights.
OTOH, if you are a photographer, and other people disagree with your decision on which weddings you chose to photograph or not, they are free to choose other photographers and there isn't anything you can do about that, either, as it is their right to do so.
Ahh, if only that were true:
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-mexico-court-ruling-on-gay-weddings-2013-8 [businessinsider.com]
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A commercial photography business owned by opponents of same-sex marriage violated New Mexico's anti-discrimination law by refusing to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony, the state's highest court ruled Thursday....Justice Richard Bosson wrote that the business owners "have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans w
Re:FFS (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing with this is there's a difference between a boycott, and then threatening them, their customers, sponsors, partners, etc with physical violence. All too often the later is what ends up happening. That cupcake business for example didn't stop because they had no customers, they had to stop because they were in fear for their lives. That is where the freedom of speech comes in.
Somebody cracking a gay joke or not wanting to put a gay themed ad out doesn't deserve that kind of thing. Even if you don't agree, the first amendment does.
Re: (Score:2)
Which "cupcake business" is that? I found a couple of possible instances but both businesses are still there.
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment doesn't, really. All the first amendment covers is Congress making laws. That said, the principle of free speech says that they should not be threatened with violence. ... That said, I am pretty suspicious that there's a lot more people saying they were threatened than are actually threatened, because I've never in my life met one of these people who threatens people with violence, and I've met lots of people who said completely different things, then got accused of threatening people wi
Re: (Score:2)
He's saying "What if your boss told you to stop working for him, because you promoted homosexuality?"
Does your gay gene make you stupid? Or are you just from a family of idiots?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
If he is allowed to run he company as he wishes, he should be prepared to deal with the backlash when spouting out such homophobic responses. If you are the chairman of a company you must keep in mind your public image because you are not just representing yourself when you speak out like this. Especially, if you are talking about your companies products.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How is disagreeing with someone a sign of fear (phobia)?
Re: (Score:2)
How is disagreeing with someone a sign of fear (phobia)?
Because a phobia is a mental disorder, and people like to take the easy way out of an argument by claiming that their opponent is wrong because "their brain is broken." It's easier than rational debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: FFS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But our Barilla guy did not any show any of these: disapproval was all it took to get labeled. I call shenanigans. And as a psychologist I am terribly upset by the lack of harsh positioning on the APA's side. While they disapprove of liberal use of clinical terminology they do not do anything more.
Re: (Score:2)
Homophobic is actually a pretty good description of the problem - an irrational fear of homosexuality. Normal people tend not to talk in medical terms, words can have more than one meaning, meanings change over time, etc. etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all phobia is "fear" in the straightforward way. No one worries that spraying materials with scotchguard makes them "afraid" of water.
Secondly... While many anti-gays aren't really exhibiting phobic behavior, some are. Go browse Not Always Right for a while, and look at some of the people who start freaking out and screaming because a store has a gay clerk. That's reasonably categorized as phobia-like.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Disagreement is taking an opposing intellectual position. Homophobia, like other forms of bigotry, is not an intellectual position.
It is not necessarily a fear -- it is often misleading to attempt to figure out the meaning of a word by looking at its to etymology.
Homosexuals reject procreation. That's not an intellectual position to take. People have both a civic and moral duty to procreate. A culture based around sustaining enough population to maintain itself through immigration is a) parasitic, b) evil and c) fundamentally self destructive.
The social contract where you get to relax and let the young people take care of things when you're old and tired relies on everyone paying into the system. Not with money. With babies. Nothing else will do, there's nothi
Re: FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Homosexuals reject procreation. That's not an intellectual position to take. People have both a civic and moral duty to procreate.
If that is your genuine feeling then please allow me to offer a hearty "fuck you". Who the fucking hell are you to tell me I have a moral and civic duty to procreate?
Given the shithole we're busily making out of our little planet Earth, I see it as my moral and civic duty to NOT procreate.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If he is allowed to run he company as he wishes, he should be prepared to deal with the backlash when spouting out such homophobic responses. If you are the chairman of a company you must keep in mind your public image because you are not just representing yourself when you speak out like this. Especially, if you are talking about your companies products.
He is NOT homophobic is he decides for whatever reason (religion i suspect) that he doesn't want his company to promote a lifestyle he doesn't agree with. He didn't say gay people could not buy his pasta or that gay people should be put in pasta free concentration camps. He didn't even tell gay people to not be gay. He just said he didn't want gay people advertising his product. His company, his right to do that. He did not take away anyone's freedom. As if who you have sex with is some kind of protec
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically, he didn't spout a homophobic response. His original response was to the question of whether or not they would target gays in commercials by showing gay couples to which he responded no. He further responded if gays liked his pasta they would buy it, if not they would buy somebody elses. He didn't see the need to treat gays as a separate demographic when dealing with pasta (do gays really have different pasta needs then non-gays?) It is the media that has turned this around into an anti-gay thi
Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
so you agree with if you don't like it don't buy it but disagree with boycotts? what the fuck?
though I'm more worried why the fuck someone is even listening what the fuck some pasta maker guy says. all their adverts are basically the same anyways, some family making food or just macro shots of spaghetti. if they changed to a gay couple fencing with spaghettis.. it might be brilliant marketing.
but also why the fuck is this on slashdot...
Re:FFS (Score:4, Insightful)
but also why the fuck is this on slashdot...
Because it's on these new cool social networks that only geeks know about and ... uh, what? It's not 2005 anymore? Really?
Ok, I have no idea. Slow news day? Some editor found it funny? Misclick? Cat video scared the editors in hitting "accept" on three random submissions? Wrong moon phase?
Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Because an equal amount of the nerd community relative to the rest of society is gay. That makes this news that matters to many nerds. But truly that is not quite enough to justify this being on slashdot. This is also an example of technology pushing social change further than it has ever been able to go by itself. So we have: 1. nerds 2. news that matters very much to many nerds 3. a news story that matters to a lot of nerds that is firmly based in technology as an example of how it is rapidly reshaping society.
That's why it's on slashdot, it fits the bill.
Re:FFS (Score:4, Insightful)
This is also an example of technology pushing social change further than it has ever been able to go by itself.
Ineffective boycotts are farther than technology has ever gone? No, we've had ineffective boycotts long before then. Remember when Chic-fil-a closed because of the boycott? Neither do I.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FFS (Score:4, Insightful)
What constructive dialog are you talking about?
Some liberals were pissed that the owner was a homophobe. Some conservatives rallied to support the homophobe just to spite the liberals. Some asshole mayor tried to ban Chik-fil-a from his town. And then nothing happened.
The only thing to come out of it was that Americans were left hating their neighbors slightly more than they did before.
Re: (Score:2)
Ineffective boycotts are farther than technology has ever gone?
The mere threat of a boycott caused the CEO to publicly apologize. How was that "ineffective"?
Remember when Chic-fil-a closed because of the boycott? Neither do I.
Chic-fil-a did not close, but they got a lot of negative publicity, and now other restaurant chains will be reluctant to take sides on divisive social issues. When I drive past a Chic-fil-a, I have a mental image of two ugly guys having sex, and I lose my appetite.
Re: (Score:2)
When I drive past a Chic-fil-a, I have a mental image of two ugly guys having sex, and I lose my appetite.
You didn't lose your appetite just at seeing a Chic-fil-a?
now other restaurant chains will be reluctant to take sides on divisive social issues.
I see that as a negative.
Re: (Score:3)
No they don't. They don't take away anyone's right to say anything.
What they may do, however, is affect the consequences of saying things that upset people.
And, critically, they make it possible for people with little or no voice to react in some way to high-profile speakers who have large audiences.
That's an improvement in my book.
Otherwise, under
Re: (Score:3)
Social and/or business consequences, yes. Legal consequences, no, as I've already made clear.
How would you envision a world in which there were no consequences for speaking?
And what would be the point of opening your mouth in such a world?
Re: (Score:3)
If the goal is to get them to stop talking, and that is your goal, then once again, you are among the few people I hate.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said anything about boycotts. Moreover it's the technology fueled dialog these situations create. Such as this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is also an example of technology pushing social change further than it has ever been able to go by itself.
Ineffective boycotts are farther than technology has ever gone? No, we've had ineffective boycotts long before then. Remember when Chic-fil-a closed because of the boycott? Neither do I.
There is a small difference here. Chic-fil-a is pretty darn delicious for a fast-food restaurant. Their chicken is properly chicken, and not some ridiculous processed patty like the major fast-food chains have. I disagree with the owners completely, but the product is so good I won't stop eating there. We don't have them in the northeast US, generally, so I eat there when I can. In other words, there are many reasons to eat there, and only a minor reason to not eat there.
However, there are dozens of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've had fire and the wheel for a few years now... We can stop putting every news story under the umbrella of: "Technology was involved, somehow".
And if /. is the supposed hall of reverence for all things technology, why isn't every story mentioning homosexuality, followed up with links to current scientific research as they narrow in on biological causes, and develop therapies that can prevent
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because they're not relevant to the story. We have technology right now to prevent male or female babies; that doesn't mean that this should be a prominent part of any story about sexism. ("And a reminder, the only reason women are getting treated this way is that people keep having girl babies, despite technology allowing us to detect them very early and abort them.")
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference that you have missed. With a boycott you don't just "not buy it", but also try to convince others to refrain from purchasing their products as well. It isn't a major difference, but there is a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Guidos are a lot like the gays, except without the homosexuality.
Coffee fucking everywhere.
I'm using this.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, Guidos are a lot like the gays, except without the homosexuality.
Guido Barilla, meet Guido Westerwelle, outgoing Foreign Minister of Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_Westerwelle [wikipedia.org]
He's openly gay, but no one makes a big deal out of it.
Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not making any sense. A boycott is nothing but a large group of people saying "we don't like it, so we're not buying it." Boycotts (and buycotts [wikipedia.org]) are an exercise in free speech and free markets. It is antiboycott laws (such as the blatantly unconstitutional one the U.S. has to squash criticism of Israel [doc.gov]) that are attempts at silencing free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
The antiboycott law is aimed at the boycott of Israel by the Arab League. The Arab League is composed of governments, whi can apply governmental pressure, either by deciding how to use taxpayer-collected money, or directly by not allowing companies to operate within their borders. Companies boycotting Israel as part of this are not exercising in actions of free speech, but of governmentally-coerced speech, and this can only be stopped by government coercion in the opposite direction.
Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Shucks, if someone wanted to pay me five million dollars a year, I'd learn to keep my mouth shut.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The story is about the power of social networks, not about a pasta maker's stance on gays.
Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy is entitled to his opinion and to run the company as he wishes
The instant you decide one person's money is less than another's, you've become bad at business.
The converse of this is when you decide to give away too many freebies to your "friends" which is also bad business.
I've personally seen businesses go under because of shit like this.
He deserves this and your defense of this is idiotic.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The people pushing the gay agenda are as rabid as any religious group. Be gay if you want. I'm all about personal freedom. Just stop trying to make the rest of the world gay, too. Tolerance != acceptance.
Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Enough with the stupid fucking boycotts that are nothing but attempts at silencing free speech.
Furthermore, free speech does not mean to be free from criticism.
You are entirely free to say dumb things. Other people are free to say those things are dumb.
--
BMO
Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Boycotts are free speech, genius.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy is entitled to his opinion and to run the company as he wishes. If you don't like it don't buy it. Enough with the stupid fucking boycotts...
Boycott [wikipedia.org] - this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:FFS (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You really should get yourself some professional help. Living with a head full of bigotry and delusions hurts you much more than the people you inflict yourself upon.
Fake Aplology is Fake (Score:2)
As predicted in Slate [slate.com], Guido Barilla (yes, that's his name) issues meaningless apology. For those counting at home, this is actually the forth one. Now what?
Sincere "OMG Sorry!" for typo in subject! (Score:2)
"Aplology"?! *facepalm* Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, I think I need more coffee...
Re: (Score:2)
Cashing in on the Chick-fil-A effect (Score:2)
On a lighter note with chick-fil-a profits at an all time high what does this chairman have to fear but fear itself?
Seriously there does seem to be a general lack of respect and tolerance for the opinions of others in the faceb00c twitterverseternet. So someone thinks your god is a loser or orange people are inferior to purple people or those who eat rice with their bare hands are cave dwelling vampires. If someone says or does something you personally don't agree with or you don't like is it really alway
Re: (Score:3)
On a lighter note with chick-fil-a profits at an all time high what does this chairman have to fear but fear itself?
Apples to oranges. Dry pasta is pretty much indistinguishable between brands when cooked. Chik-fil-a has pretty much no competitor in the South in regards to their core product (you can tell a difference between a chikfila sandwich and its equivalent from, say McDonalds). There is much more loyalty to brands in the fast food industry than there is in pasta. There is also the fact that a CEOs personal belief really doesn't matter all that much. People have other overriding concerns: for example I have no problem with gays or gay marriage, but I like chikfila so I buy it (not too often though as I try to stay away from fast food) and if I need pasta and it is on sale, I will probably buy Barilla if it is cheapest. I don't care what the CEOs think about gay marriage, or their preference regarding boxers or briefs or hell, even women's underwear, who am I to judge? Because none of that really matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a danger in this -
I do the grocery shopping for our house. Pasta is a "which is cheapest" decision.
Typically it's a dime or so difference and about 2 seconds of decision making process. Sometimes I go for the cheapest, sometimes I step up a level, depending largely on my gut reaction that day. Typically "up a level" is Barilla. Now if I buy Barilla I'm supporting someone whose views I don't agree with, so it's more likely I'll save the 20 cents and go no-name.
Min
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is very different from a pasta manufacturer, as most americans simply see pasta as cheap commodity product. Which chickfila there are few other options in the cat
Re: (Score:2)
In my view intolerance and lack of respect for the views of others is no different than intolerance of race/religion/sex*/..etc. Intolerance is intolerance.
It's for ideas like this that the saying "it's important to be open-minded, but not so much that your brains fall out" was coined. Tolerance and respect for the views of others are, on the whole, a good thing. But the views of people who believe that other people are in the wrong simply for living their lives as they see fit deserve not tolerance and respect, but scorn and condemnation. It's pretty much the verbal equivalent of another fine saying, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins
Where can I buy their products in US ? (Score:2, Funny)
I want to support someone normal.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I will be sure to buy only Barilla pasta from now on.
He has his opinion and that's all, after-all it is his business.
Why should eveyone bow to whatever gays say.
Because of their constant bull shit I went from being open minded to not supporting them.
I think they should shut the fuck up and let other's have their opinions.
Publicity stunt? (Score:2)
Am I the only one cynical enough to see this as a publicity stunt to get his product's name some free press?
Step 1: make an inane statement that deeply offends some group, guaranteeing press coverage.
Step 2: make a "heartfelt" apology for those that were offended by his words.
Step 3: draw it out for a few more weeks by meeting representatives of the groups he offended, and probably make some large corporate donations to said groups.
Step 4: profit (?)
Gay community takes themselves down a notch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Firstly, why are Barilla's remarks considered anti-gay? I don't feel they are. His position is that if you like his pasta, gay or not, you are free to buy it.
Secondly, there is no universal "book of law" that states Barilla's beliefs & values must reflect anybody or everybody else's. Hypocrisy abounds. The fervor of gay community elements have reached shrieking "reverse discrimination" pitches.
Thirdly, Barilla owes nothing to the gay community. He makes pasta. I think if he doesn't want to feature homosexuality as a cornerstone to a freaking pasta advertisement, that should be his choice. Why should he be forced politicize pasta?
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.
Can we mod the article as: -1, Overblown Knee-Jerk Reaction
Who gives a shit about the *opinion* of some businessman.
Mountain out of a molehill (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...or heterosexuals having children by the regular process. The kids don't really have a choice either way.
Re: (Score:3)
Implicit in that argument is that there is a reason why a child might not want to be adopted by gay parents.
Re:Facebook? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, Slashdot should continue adding "(PDF warning)" to PDF links, and add "(Facebook warning)" in the same fashion to fb links.
Re:Facebook? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, Slashdot should... add "(Facebook warning)" in the same fashion to fb links.
Your browser doesn't show the URL of a link you hover over?
Re:Facebook? (Score:5, Informative)
Not on mobile devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easier, I just put Facebook IN MY hosts file and never SEE them again.
God, how does that idiot APK do all that random formatting all the time? That takes a lot of work to pick just the right set of nonsensical words to emphasize!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you're right that "phobia" isn't really the best term. They're not scared, they're just assholes.
Wikipedia says "A phobia (from the Greek: ÏÏOEÎÎÏ, Phobos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder". Most homophobes aren't afraid of homosexuals, but they are disturbed by them which makes "homophobe" a perfectly fitting description.
Personally, I don't want anyone shoving their sexuality in my face, whether
Re: (Score:2)
well, it could truthfully be called an "abnormality", like my left-handedness. we may get gay marriage in my state, but the banks will still fasten their pens on the right side of the lobby tables
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except, of course, that homosexuality involves loving relationships between people of the same gender, and cannibalism involves murder, so they're not really comparable at all.
We're not all murderers, you cannibophobe. All the people that I eat are already dead!
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Re: (Score:3)
Who does he think he is? A Hollywood actor?
Re:Old people (Score:5, Interesting)
Each generation is brainwashed into a different Matrix. 'Founding Fathers' and other great men until 1960s would by today's brainwashing be denounced as racist, sexist homophobes. Kids of tomorrow may denounce you as a hateful old polygamophobe, pedophilophobe, zoophilophobe, necrophilophobe, fetishphobe, toesuckingphobe, kleptophobe.... And then you too will wonder, what the heck is wrong with these kids, while they will insist that you vet your public speaking with younger, more enlightened folks before making a fool out of yourself. Having lived in a communist country as it flipped into its exact opposite, then not long after that it flipped back, you wouldn't believe how quickly and how thoroughly the tune in schools and media changes the dominant mythology to its complete opposite. Once you experience it, you can't take any of them very seriously.
Of course, not all Matrices are created equal. Since each Matrix is a computational process, working out yet another provisional solution to the social harmonization puzzle, you can't know which is a good and which a poor solution until some time time has passed and the latest experimental solution had a chance to get tested under variety of conditions. As the old book taught, you will know them by their fruits.
Re: (Score:2)
Bertolli did one better:
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/bertolli-makes-most-barilla-chairmans-anti-gay-comments-152758 [adweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Bertolli got an ad out pretty quickly:
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/bertolli-makes-most-barilla-chairmans-anti-gay-comments-152758 [adweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So why did you even bother clicking the link, let alone commenting?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, judging by your opinions, I guess maybe you have.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes apologies don't mean shit. It's far more important to know what people really believe.
Which is one of the reasons I did/do not support this boycott. Best I could tell, he expressed his opinion, but wasn't or isn't actively trying to suppress gay rights. If we boycott companies for honestly stating opinions, as is my read of this situation (please inform me of any more relevant details, however), then we don't change their opinions, we just change what they say. Everybody loses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone not in favour of jewish marriage and also not in favour of deliberately sticking jewish people in the media to show them off, I still find his remarks very problematic.
Choosing to not give the role of media spokesperson to someone who is jewish and a public figure in "jewish rights movements" is one thing. But ruling out that an advertisement can ever contain a jewish family is going too far.
In that case you are not disliking merely "the way in which they are jewish", i.e. they are jewish and they take specific actions and you dislike those particular actions, but you blanket exclude them regardless of what they do from the fact that they are jewish alone.
If you cringe when hate speech directed towards gays is converted into that towards another traditionally reviled minority is your dislike of gays justified? Are such traditions worth holding sacred?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but that's Different, you see. It's always Different when the group being targeted is someone you personally dislike.
Also: Godwin! Godwin! You called Barilla a Nazi! Now anything you say is wrong, because Godwin!
Re: (Score:2)
...to find a way to boycott the boycotters. "Fine, it's your right to boycott Barilla (or Florida or whatever the cause du jour is) but fuck you, we're all going to boycott YOUR business because of it. That's MY right."
The problem is that the most enthusiastic and noisiest boycotters tend not to do anything economically productive that could be boycotted in return.
I can't cite the exact source or wording offhand, but P.J. O'Rourke, when asked why liberal causes can generally bring out more marchers, ralliers, and volunteers activists than conservative ones, said, "Because we have jobs."