Social Networks Force Barilla Chairman To Apologize For His Anti-gay Remarks

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."

Comments

FFS

[geek]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Choosing where I spend my money is violating someone else's free speech? What the fuck, dude?!?

Re: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

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:FFS

[gl4ss]

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

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

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) 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) that are attempts at silencing free speech.

Re:FFS

[sandytaru]

He's entitled to his personal opinion. But a CEO is a very public position, and they're being paid to represent not just themselves, but also their company. For as much money as those guys make, you'd think they'd learn to separate their private opinions from their public company representation. The correct way to position this would have been: "I don't like gay people. Marketing hasn't come up with a good commercial to feature gay people, and maybe they never will. But they can still eat our pasta if they want."

Shucks, if someone wanted to pay me five million dollars a year, I'd learn to keep my mouth shut.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

The story is about the power of social networks, not about a pasta maker's stance on gays.

Re:FFS

[bmo]

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:FFS

[bmo]

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

[Tom]

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

[Arancaytar]

Enough with the stupid fucking boycotts that are nothing but attempts at silencing free speech.

Boycotts are free speech, genius.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly it's not respecting that right. I think if your employer stopped paying you because you promoted homosexuality you'd be lisping a different tune.

Re:FFS

[wjcofkc]

but also why the fuck is this on slashdot...

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

[phantomfive]

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: FFS

[Poorcku]

It is one of the most obscene and vulgar uses of a non-scientific term. Not only it isn't a valid scientific construct (Homophobia is not listed in any version of DSM and/or ICD) but it masquerades as one (since it has the suffix -phobia) which makes it even more dangerous. It implies a disorder when there is none making your "opponent" defending his ideas from an untenable position. The one who came up with this idea is a genius and should go to hell.

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

recant, through free speech and market mechanisms

You missed the point. Economics has nothing to do with it. This is about personal demonization, personal public shaming and subsequent public debasement, the same sort of thing that goes on in totalitarian regimes, esp. Marxist regimes.

Christians, parents, gun owners, environmentalists, and others all do the same thing.

True, they all have organized boycotts. The only economically successful one has been the boycott by 2nd amendment supporters (not gun owners per se) of Smith&Wesson in reaction to the deal that S&W cut with the Clinton administration in which S&W would be made the exclusive supplier of firearms to civilian federal govt. organizations in exchange for S&W's support of new gun control measures and S&W's parroting of gun controller's talking points.

The difference between the boycotts by gays and by the other groups that you have mentioned is that when gays target an individual or a corporation, they have most of the western media (including most of the western state-run media), the entertainment industry, some politicians, and political pundits of many stripes joining with gay activists in personally denouncing the individuals involved, using derogatory words like "homophobe", "neanderthal", "hater", "bigot", "extremist", "intolerant", etc. Most other groups don't have the same avalanche of support when they try to organize boycotts and some groups, such as the supporters of traditional values, to the extent that they receive any public attention, are targeted by the same entities that support gay activists when they boycott something. It is important to note that the media, entertainment industry, pundits, etc. aren't representative of the public, but represent a small number of decision makers who are translating their own values into either support or condemnation. This distorted support isn't always successful in getting a particular individual or corporation to capitulate, but it does suppress the expression of ideas and opinions which are heretical to those held by the powerful.

This behavior by the powerful obviously doesn't bother you since it supports your political preferences atm, but the political winds do change. It may be that a backlash will take place in which you end up on the losing side. Think about that along with recent revelations about the NSA and the IRS and consider the proliferation of SWAT teams, the attempt to create a unified national command structure for those SWAT teams and the control of access to healthcare that Obamacare gives to the federal govt. We are witnessing the creation of many of the elements of a police state that savagely punishes dissent. Public shaming of individuals today may well translate into imprisonment tomorrow. Try to look past the narrow confines of gay politics.

when gays do it, somehow free speech becomes the "gay mafia"?

There is a network of professional political activists, PR agents and an army of lawyers and sympathetic judges which promote the gay agenda through media, political and legal manipulation that have allowed the gay agenda to be forced into the education system and onto society at large. The tactics used by gays to get their way certainly involves a "win by any means necessary" mentality that involves a lot of nasty and dishonest stuff. Other groups don't have the same mindset.

Re: FFS

[Samantha Wright]

The -phobia suffix has been used to demarcate prejudices since long, long before the DSM was even conceived of. "Gallophobia" (fear/hate of the Gallic people, i.e. the French) dates back to 1840 at the latest. You are mistaken to presume it necessarily implies a disorder, or any sort of academic authority.

Re:FFS

[artor3]

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: FFS

[Poorcku]

Usually these kinds of "phobias" are described as fear, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the "phobia".

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:FFS

[AlphaWolf_HK]

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: FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

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 thing.

Re:FFS

[Zirbert]

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

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 who believe something different."

Re: FFS

[ShieldW0lf]

How is disagreeing with someone a sign of fear (phobia)?

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 nothing else you can create that will fill the gap left behind if you don't make those babies.

If you don't pay in, but you take out, you're a thief. It really doesn't matter if you like babies or not, or if you like members of the opposite sex or not. People don't like going to work, but they do it because it's necessary for it to be done.

People like to act as though this was an issue of prejudice, but it isn't.

Believing that gay people are weak and unfit to do hard work is prejudicial, and thus, irrational. Some gay people are very strong, and you won't know until you investigate.

Believing that gay people don't hold up their part of the social contract that makes it possible for us to survive when we grow old, however, is NOT prejudicial. When they tell you they're gay, you don't need to investigate further. You know they're not doing it.

Opposing the normalization of homosexuality is a rational act.

Promoting it to young people in an effort to sway them to embrace it has the same effect as attempting to persuade them to take drugs that will sterilize them. It's an attempt to do them harm.

You know what else is irrational?

Idealism carried too far.

Re: FFS

[Sardaukar86]

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.

Re: FFS

[Yosho]

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 nothing else you can create that will fill the gap left behind if you don't make those babies.

Hahahah. Wow. Seriously, this is hilarious. I would think you're a troll, but you seem so level-headed about it, and you sound a lot like some Objectivists I've talked to.

Homosexuals don't "reject procreation" at all. They are attracted to members of the same sex. That's it. They don't "reject procreation" any more than heterosexual couples that use birth control. Gay men and lesbian women are still perfectly fertile and capable of having children -- and sometimes they do! Sometimes they also like to adopt and care for orphaned children. I don't know if you've looked at an orphanage or adoption agency recently, but there is no shortage of children whose parents either could not or would not take care of them. Do you feel the same way about heterosexual couples who don't have more than two children? They're not doing their job to overpopulate the world!

It seems like you think being homosexual is some kind of choice. There's no such thing as "promoting" it. People don't suddenly decide that being gay is cool and switch who they're attracted to. The only thing that not being prejudiced against gay people will do is make people who are already gay happier. The only consequence of people "embracing" their homosexuality is that they won't hate themselves because of people telling them they're evil.

Re:He just sold a hell of a lot of pasta

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it the bigots always refer to homosexuality as 'deviancy' and have a terrible obsession with the fucking-based aspects of it? Have they ever had a normal relationship with anyone?

Re:Facebook?

[game kid]

Seriously, Slashdot should continue adding "(PDF warning)" to PDF links, and add "(Facebook warning)" in the same fashion to fb links.

Re:Facebook?

[mcgrew]

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:Mountain out of a molehill

[Yosho]

He is, however, against adoption by gay parents (because it involves a person who has no choice in the matter).

That prompts the question, why isn't he against adoption by heterosexual parents?