London mayor bans "body shaming" advertising (that depicts revealing women)

[Matty]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/london-mayor-bans-body-shaming-141918152.html

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Land-whales lobby strikes again.

[Santander]

When will it end?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Height of absurdity, and yet probably one of the least offensive things a member of the British Labor Party has done in recent months.

[Famous Mortimer]

Feminists Team Up With Muslim Mayor to Ban Pictures of Uncovered Women In Public

[Cory]

Feminists Team Up With Muslim Mayor to Ban Pictures of Uncovered Women In Public

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Feminists Team Up With Muslim Mayor to Ban Pictures of Uncovered Women In Public

Ha!

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Feminists Team Up With Muslim Mayor to Ban Pictures of Uncovered Women In Public

kek 10/10

[YaBoyNY]

I don't understand why.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Khan's stated rationale is odd by Atlas standards, but not in a way that should be surprising or that's inconsistent with certain types of gender politics-oriented leftism. Bringing the man's religion into it is unparsimonious as well as distasteful, but I guess it's kind of reassuring to see the usual suspects doing so. Some things never change.

[MaxQue]

Feminists Team Up With Muslim Mayor to Ban Pictures of Uncovered Women In Public

Atlas MRAs for anorexia!

[Blair]

Khan's stated rationale is odd by Atlas standards, but not in a way that should be surprising or that's inconsistent with certain types of gender politics-oriented leftism. Bringing the man's religion into it is unparsimonious as well as distasteful, but I guess it's kind of reassuring to see the usual suspects doing so. Some things never change.

This

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Feminists Team Up With Muslim Mayor to Ban Pictures of Uncovered Women In Public

Ha!

Why do you guys care?  I thought right wingers don't ride socialist public transportation anyway?

You guys do realize they photoshop those models.  I'm not into this whole fat acceptance thing.  It's stupid to normalize an unhealthy condition, but there is a lot of false advertisement out there.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Feminists Team Up With Muslim Mayor to Ban Pictures of Uncovered Women In Public

Atlas MRAs for anorexia!

I'm extremely skinny and weigh around 140 pounds, which is the most I've ever weighed. When I see these massive frat boys in my building using the gym, doing pull ups in the stairwell, and so forth, I do not feel "ashamed." I do not care. If I wanted to be physically stronger, and at various times in my life I have, I always went out and tried to do something about it. Culture values masculinity in men, no? Then how about no more ads like this.

So yeah, this is ridiculous. "Body shaming" is another concept that is paternalistic in nature. My mother is extremely skinny as well, and I've heard comments from other women being directed at her such as "be careful in this wind, you might blow away!" I've watched my Aunt's best friend's son make jokes about her weight (she's apparently slightly overweight, though frankly to me she seems about average) to her face which I'm sure were hurtful.

People shouldn't make comments directed at other's weight or appearance. That is politeness and common decency 101. But an advertisement on the bus featuring a buff, cool frat guy or an anorexic blonde model shouldn't make anyone feel bad. The advertisement is not telling or saying anything to them-if an ad makes them that uncomfortable, then it simply is their hangup.

There was a great South Park episode on this subject; I highly suggest people watch it.

Feminists Team Up With Muslim Mayor to Ban Pictures of Uncovered Women In Public

Ha!

Why do you guys care?  I thought right wingers don't ride socialist public transportation anyway?

You guys do realize they photoshop those models.  I'm not into this whole fat acceptance thing.  It's stupid to normalize an unhealthy condition, but there is a lot of false advertisement out there.

Well, thanks a lot Captain Obvious!

[Associate Justice PiT]

Khan's stated rationale is odd by Atlas standards, but not in a way that should be surprising or that's inconsistent with certain types of gender politics-oriented leftism. Bringing the man's religion into it is unparsimonious as well as distasteful, but I guess it's kind of reassuring to see the usual suspects doing so. Some things never change.

     So his stated rationale is consistent with a terrible ideology...not looking good for Mr. Khan.

[Famous Mortimer]

I don't think him being a Muslim plays a role in this. I doubt he's that devout. I just thought it was funny.

[Maxwell]

I kind of don't understand the enforcement. Plus I don't think it's especially priority, given that the UK is about to have to re-think their entire economy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

(For reference: I don't really think this is that key an issue, at all (I'd be interested to know how much time and effort this required on Khan's part...), and characterizing the problem--even the specifically feminist side of the problem--with raunchy public advertising as one of 'body shaming' weirds me out because I've never really been on board with that kind of conceptual language, but if I had to choose whether I thought this was a good or bad decision I'd say it's a good one.)

Khan's stated rationale is odd by Atlas standards, but not in a way that should be surprising or that's inconsistent with certain types of gender politics-oriented leftism. Bringing the man's religion into it is unparsimonious as well as distasteful, but I guess it's kind of reassuring to see the usual suspects doing so. Some things never change.

     So his stated rationale is consistent with a terrible ideology...not looking good for Mr. Khan.

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

[Hatman 🍁]

If they're overly photoshopped, I can see a rationale for false advertising. That's something I can get behind. But if the photos in the ads are 'natural', then I'm all for them.

[MaxQue]

I kind of don't understand the enforcement. Plus I don't think it's especially priority, given that the UK is about to have to re-think their entire economy.

He bans them on buses / in the subway, both which are municipal services of London.

[Intell]

So?

[Maxwell]

I kind of don't understand the enforcement. Plus I don't think it's especially priority, given that the UK is about to have to re-think their entire economy.

He bans them on buses / in the subway, both which are municipal services of London.

But what constitutes body shaming? What if it's a fat person wearing revealing clothes? I understand the motive but it seems like a weird thing to do imo.

[Associate Justice PiT]

(For reference: I don't really think this is that key an issue, at all (I'd be interested to know how much time and effort this required on Khan's part...), and characterizing the problem--even the specifically feminist side of the problem--with raunchy public advertising as one of 'body shaming' weirds me out because I've never really been on board with that kind of conceptual language, but if I had to choose whether I thought this was a good or bad decision I'd say it's a good one.)

Khan's stated rationale is odd by Atlas standards, but not in a way that should be surprising or that's inconsistent with certain types of gender politics-oriented leftism. Bringing the man's religion into it is unparsimonious as well as distasteful, but I guess it's kind of reassuring to see the usual suspects doing so. Some things never change.

     So his stated rationale is consistent with a terrible ideology...not looking good for Mr. Khan.

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

     As someone who is of the opinion that government's role should not be to infantilize us ad hide bad thoughts and bad ideas from us, yes I would.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

(For reference: I don't really think this is that key an issue, at all (I'd be interested to know how much time and effort this required on Khan's part...), and characterizing the problem--even the specifically feminist side of the problem--with raunchy public advertising as one of 'body shaming' weirds me out because I've never really been on board with that kind of conceptual language, but if I had to choose whether I thought this was a good or bad decision I'd say it's a good one.)

Khan's stated rationale is odd by Atlas standards, but not in a way that should be surprising or that's inconsistent with certain types of gender politics-oriented leftism. Bringing the man's religion into it is unparsimonious as well as distasteful, but I guess it's kind of reassuring to see the usual suspects doing so. Some things never change.

     So his stated rationale is consistent with a terrible ideology...not looking good for Mr. Khan.

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

     As someone who is of the opinion that government's role should not be to infantilize us ad hide bad thoughts and bad ideas from us, yes I would.

Well, you would frame it that way, wouldn't you?

Public transit, which is what this applies to, is a public service. It's under Khan's control. As the head of his city's government, he's allowed to choose what kinds of vendors and what kinds of advertisers using what kinds of images he wants that government to give a platform to. As it happens, he's chosen to not give that public platform to raunch. Suck it up.

[Marokai Backbeat]

At least framing it as "not wanting to give a platform to raunch" would be more honest than trying to claim it's about "body shaming."