Comments:Web startup Sqoot loses sponsorship after failed advert deemed sexist by social media

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Nice coverage Wikinews! Seems like there is a trend this year in bad "public relations" -- first Komen and now this. The problem with the word PR when these issues crop up is that it makes it sound like the entity is just having a communications problem. At the heart of the matter, it is an insensitivity within the organizations to changes in culture and power -- in both of the cases noted -- to gender issues and treating others fairly. This Wikinews story brought that out, even bringing in sexual orientation issues, in a way readers don't often see in the other press.

Gotta love politically-correct censorship... but where in the original blurb does it even mention sexual orientation?

This article is badly marred by synthesis, and may have been written with an agenda. It also gives very little detail about the industry or about hack-a-thons that would be useful to an outsider, instead relying on opinions from a variety of sources, only some of which are credible.

Ok, i havent seen the Ad myself, but i get a really good idea from the article (Btw nice job on that) so i want to discuss, can this really be considered homophobic or sexist? I honestly think not. As i have said I have not seen this ad for myself (a link to it would be apreciated)but I will put my argument this way, if no men are waiting or bar tending, its sexist. therefore using this logic (the same logic of the people who say this ad is sexist) then unless there was a waiter or bartender of every ethnicity, then i can call the same ad racist. See the issue with this? Advertisers dont want to get actors of every race, sex, or sexuality. Why? first off, it cost more money. Second off, they dont have large amounts of ad space for that many actors. I believe these are the true reasons behind there choice of actors for this ad, not because there sexist,racists, or homophobic.

All this aside i truly do believe that this has happened solely because the world is getting over-sensitive about things.

Thoughts? (also if this is true i guess we can shut down all the hooters out there O.O)

"the world is getting over-sensitive about things." or rather the world has certain civility standards, you have a problem with. why the bankers didn't nip this earlier is a question, probably fighting a losing battle. Slowking4 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)