The Bar Towel

If the Naughty Neighbour can offends you... then I can't help you. But you need help.

Blasphomet wrote:If the Naughty Neighbour can offends you... then I can't help you. But you need help.

...did you read any of the posts or comprehend the issues presented by me or by others?
just wondering.

atomeyes wrote:

Blasphomet wrote:If the Naughty Neighbour can offends you... then I can't help you. But you need help.

...did you read any of the posts or comprehend the issues presented by me or by others?
just wondering.

I read up until I couldn't stop rolling my eyes anymore... and people started talking about the past like the world hasn't changed for women since nineteen-fucking-twenty.



Soft 'adults'... having their feelings hurt by beer cans. It's nothing more than that. Your taking offense is meaningless... as thankfully Nickel Brook had the guts to say. What a fucking world. What doesn't offend the softass safespace snowflakes these days?


I also can't help but think of this meme every time something as tired and pathetic of "ew the sexy lady on the beer can is objectifying my gender and I'm so offended!" topic comes up...




Thankfully I was and still am able to separate fantasy from reality, and I can't even imagine having nothing better to do than be offended by something so harmless as a leggy lady on a beer can.

I've always wondered how many of the folks who are passionately committed to these sort of 'social justice campaigns' ever take a step back for a moment and look at their behaviour objectively. It's really not hard to discern the parallels between their own campaigns and those led by the sort of people who want Harry Potter books banned from libraries/schools, or sculptures of naked people covered up, or images of Mohammed banned.

Censorship is censorship; the motives for said censorship, whether noble in origin or not, are irrelevant when considering the end result: the suppression of ideas and opinions that some self-appointed 'authority' disagrees with.

If someone is actively spewing hate, riling up the townsfolk, goading them to grab their torches & pitchforks and to lynch a maligned demographic, then sure, it's time for the adult in the room to step in and shut it all down. Censor that shit and arrest the instigators. But even in this hypothetical situation, there would obviously be deep, long-festering rifts present in the social fabric. Censorship is a lazy, authoritarian band-aid solution that does nothing to fix these rifts. It just causes the people you are censoring to become even more bitter, resistant and belligerent.

Blasphomet wrote:If the Naughty Neighbour can offends you... then I can't help you. But you need help.

This is what you guys are up against, and I think if you stepped out of the GTA bubble and into the more conservative areas of the province, you'd find that this sort of opinion is a hell of a lot more common than you'd like to believe. For most people this discussion has nothing to do with objectification of women, or responsible marketing, or whatever. To them, it is just people with too much time on their hands becoming offended-by-proxy by relatively innocuous imagery and then whining on the internet about it.

If liberals should have learned anything from 2016, it's that talking down to the 'deplorable' masses is the best way to encourage them to roll their eyes, turn to their buddies and retort with a "fuck those pencil-necked snowflake eggheads!" (in fact, this has already happened several times in this very thread). At which point they double down on the socially-harmful, obnoxious behaviour that the liberals were trying to prevent in the first place. Maybe lecturing the people you disagree with is not the most efficient way in which to effect the change you seek.

See but I think you are putting in too much effort and thought on this subject... and so did I for that matter.

It's really a non-issue. It's a sexy lady on a beer can. If that offends you, then I don't know how you watch, read, listen to, or look at anything without being offended. I'd just stay in doors. And maybe you do with the new LCBO online webstore. It's not a part of some major overlying issue of misogyny. It's a beer label. And a nice one.

And what about the feelings of the strong sexy ladies who's feelings aren't hurt around every corner? The sexy ladies that like that cans with sexy ladies like them on the label? Don't their feelings count?

I hope Nickel Brook stick to their guns and don't let the weak win this battle.

darmokandjalad wrote:I've always wondered how many of the folks who are passionately committed to these sort of 'social justice campaigns' ever take a step back for a moment and look at their behaviour objectively. It's really not hard to discern the parallels between their own campaigns and those led by the sort of people who want Harry Potter books banned from libraries/schools, or sculptures of naked people covered up, or images of Mohammed banned.

as someone who, years ago, wore a shirt with a picture of Mohammed on it to make a statement on free speech, and realized how insensitive that was? yes, i've taken a step back.

Censorship is censorship

no.
we're looking at dialogue and discussion as to why there are issues with said labeling. i'm hoping that we can live in a time where it's understandable why someone would be offended by something or why packaging is just wrong. look at that stupid bar/resto in Hamilton with (Molson-brewed) beer named "Fat Cock" and "Skinny Cock". is it offensive? like, a 3/10 on the scale. is it necessary ? hell no. is it stupid? yes. so no one's censoring them, but we'd be more than happy to not support them and audibly point out their flaws to them so perhaps they'll smarten up and change.

the motives for said censorship, whether noble in origin or not, are irrelevant when considering the end result: the suppression of ideas and opinions that some self-appointed 'authority' disagrees with.

cool. so let people who are wrong continue to be wrong until things totally pass a point of no return?

If someone is actively spewing hate, riling up the townsfolk, goading them to grab their torches & pitchforks and to lynch a maligned demographic, then sure, it's time for the adult in the room to step in and shut it all down. Censor that shit and arrest the instigators. But even in this hypothetical situation, there would obviously be deep, long-festering rifts present in the social fabric. Censorship is a lazy, authoritarian band-aid solution that does nothing to fix these rifts. It just causes the people you are censoring to become even more bitter, resistant and belligerent.

and why do we have to talk about extremes?
my level of anger at NB for their ugly and stupid cans is, oh, a 1.5/10. but you know what? it's a fucking easy fix for them to make. and you expect more from a brewery based out of a major city like Hamilton. pardon the stereotype (that you bring up), but city folk should have more understanding of gender and culture concerns.

Blasphomet wrote:If the Naughty Neighbour can offends you... then I can't help you. But you need help.

This is what you guys are up against, and I think if you stepped out of the GTA bubble and into the more conservative areas of the province, you'd find that this sort of opinion is a hell of a lot more common than you'd like to believe. For most people this discussion has nothing to do with objectification of women, or responsible marketing, or whatever. To them, it is just people with too much time on their hands becoming offended-by-proxy by relatively innocuous imagery and then whining on the internet about it.

yeah, i get it. we're up against a guy who posts a really dumb He-Man and Barbie jpg and thinks it's both relevant, correct and poignant. so...ignore those people? hell, i'm interested in learning about the rural way of life. why should they turn their noses to we "liberals".

Maybe lecturing the people you disagree with is not the most efficient way in which to effect the change you seek.

...he says, after lecturing the "liberals". lol.
it's now always the same argument. "Don't lecture them," he says during his lecture.
both sides lecture, to a point. one side's brought up points and examples and logic and reason. the other tosses the "you're a pussy/snowflake/liberal" argument without any thought. *shrugs*

can't force the horse to drink water, yo. doesn't mean we can't try.

Blasphomet wrote:
It's really a non-issue. It's a sexy lady on a beer can. If that offends you, then I don't know how you watch, read, listen to, or look at anything without being offended. I'd just stay in doors. And maybe you do with the new LCBO online webstore. It's not a part of some major overlying issue of misogyny. It's a beer label. And a nice one.

And what about the feelings of the strong sexy ladies who's feelings aren't hurt around every corner? The sexy ladies that like that cans with sexy ladies like them on the label? Don't their feelings count?

you say "sexy ladies" so many times that I can't help but think you're tugging one off whilst posting on BarTowel from your wood-paneled basement and listening to Queen real fucking loud.
or that you're working on your follow-up single to "Gangham Style"

atomeyes wrote:

Blasphomet wrote:
It's really a non-issue. It's a sexy lady on a beer can. If that offends you, then I don't know how you watch, read, listen to, or look at anything without being offended. I'd just stay in doors. And maybe you do with the new LCBO online webstore. It's not a part of some major overlying issue of misogyny. It's a beer label. And a nice one.

And what about the feelings of the strong sexy ladies who's feelings aren't hurt around every corner? The sexy ladies that like that cans with sexy ladies like them on the label? Don't their feelings count?

you say "sexy ladies" so many times that I can't help but think you're tugging one off whilst posting on BarTowel from your wood-paneled basement and listening to Queen real fucking loud.
or that you're working on your follow-up single to "Gangham Style"

You didn't answer my question.

Blasphomet wrote:

atomeyes wrote:

Blasphomet wrote:
It's really a non-issue. It's a sexy lady on a beer can. If that offends you, then I don't know how you watch, read, listen to, or look at anything without being offended. I'd just stay in doors. And maybe you do with the new LCBO online webstore. It's not a part of some major overlying issue of misogyny. It's a beer label. And a nice one.

And what about the feelings of the strong sexy ladies who's feelings aren't hurt around every corner? The sexy ladies that like that cans with sexy ladies like them on the label? Don't their feelings count?

you say "sexy ladies" so many times that I can't help but think you're tugging one off whilst posting on BarTowel from your wood-paneled basement and listening to Queen real fucking loud.
or that you're working on your follow-up single to "Gangham Style"

You didn't answer my question.

i didn't realize that there was an actual question.

so, translating what you say to be "and how about the opinion of those women not offended by the labels?", is that correct?

how about pro-choice laws in Canada? should those be taking pro-life female opinions into consideration?

just because i'm not a woman doesn't mean i can't opine (rightly or wrongly, opinion-wise), but if this actually became an issue, i'd defer to experts on the subject to determine what would be for the greater good of society and to determine a standard. and, as a society, we'd listen to what those experts determine and respect their opinions and act accordingly. just like with abortion (as an extreme example).

you will always find a woman that is fine with the packaging and a woman that's offended. neither determine either consensus or what's morally appropriate.

Lol. I'm 100% pro-choice, but I'm not even come close to responded to a comment comparing 'pro-choice' to beer labels. The difference between a person telling another person what they can or can't do with their own body and a fucking beer label with a leggy woman on it is astronomical. And it's comical that you even brought it up as a part of your argument.

I'm also just going to go ahead and assume you don't watch any pornography either. At least you better not. EVER! For shame!

And never try and tell me what is or isn't morally appropriate, or try and push your shit archaic morals on me.

Blasphomet wrote:Lol. I'm 100% pro-choice, but I'm not even come close to responded to a comment comparing 'pro-choice' to beer labels. The difference between a person telling another person what they can or can't do with their own body and a fucking beer label with a leggy woman on it is astronomical. And it's comical that you even brought it up as a part of your argument.

I'm also just going to go ahead and assume you don't watch any pornography either. At least you better not. EVER! For shame!

And never try and tell me what is or isn't morally appropriate, or try and push your shit archaic morals on me.

you seem like a reasonable guy.
good luck in your future endeavours and great talking with you.

atomeyes wrote:...he says, after lecturing the "liberals". lol.
it's now always the same argument. "Don't lecture them," he says during his lecture.
both sides lecture, to a point. one side's brought up points and examples and logic and reason. the other tosses the "you're a pussy/snowflake/liberal" argument without any thought. *shrugs*

can't force the horse to drink water, yo. doesn't mean we can't try.

I am a "liberal". In fact that's not even totally accurate because I've voted NDP a few times in the recent past.

I made that original post because, as a left-winger, it annoys me to see liberals picking their battles with such terrible discretion. If a beer label is the hill you've chosen to die on, then good luck with that, but don't pretend it's doing society, or liberalism as a whole, any favours, because it's not. It's a dumb distraction that affects virtually no one.

The quest for ideological purity is not winnable, and make no mistake, that is precisely what is going on here. "If you're not with us, you're against us." That sort of thinking fractures groups, driving off the centrists who might otherwise be inclined to agree with you, galvanising the opposition, and fertilizing the political field for the people you so strongly disagree with.

I'd also suggest that your dismissive, sarcastic tone does you and your cause no favours whatsoever, and might very well be why you so often seem to receive the "pussy/snowflake/libtard" remark in response.

atomeyes wrote:

Blasphomet wrote:Lol. I'm 100% pro-choice, but I'm not even come close to responded to a comment comparing 'pro-choice' to beer labels. The difference between a person telling another person what they can or can't do with their own body and a fucking beer label with a leggy woman on it is astronomical. And it's comical that you even brought it up as a part of your argument.

I'm also just going to go ahead and assume you don't watch any pornography either. At least you better not. EVER! For shame!

And never try and tell me what is or isn't morally appropriate, or try and push your shit archaic morals on me.

you seem like a reasonable guy.
good luck in your future endeavours and great talking with you.

There is nothing reasonable about being offended by either one of those Nickel Brook beer cans.

There is no god. There are no morals.

I bet if everyone on this thread were to sit down together in person at a table over some decent beers, this conversation would be a hell of a lot more thoughtful, reasonable and civil than this. Damn you Bar Towel!

I'm not even sure what this is all about, oh ya "sexism in beer labels"
It's a shame the can goes right in the garbage as soon as it's empty, really, who keeps them or analysis them.....

Does anyone even pay any attention of the graphic design of the can? I would assume they just like the beer or want to try it, to each their own.