From the Scotsman:
The fast-food chain, Burger King, is withdrawing its ice-cream cones after the lid of the dessert offended a Muslim.
The man claimed the design resembled the Arabic inscription for Allah, and branded it sacrilegious, threatening a “jihad”.
The chain is being forced to spend thousands of pounds redesigning the lid with backing from The Muslim Council of Britain. It apologised and said: “The design simply represents a spinning ice-cream cone.”
The offending lid was spotted in a branch in Park Royal last week by business development manager Rashad Akhtar, 27, of High Wycombe.
He was not satisfied by the decision to withdraw the cones and has called on Muslims to boycott Burger King. He said: “This is my jihad. How can you say it is a spinning swirl? If you spin it one way to the right you are offending Muslims.”
A Muslim Council spokesman said: “We commend the sensitive and prompt action that Burger King has taken.”
Another little bit of linguistic control surrendered—this time in iconic form.
Sure, Burger King’s capitulation defuses the situation somewhat—and from a short-term business perspective, it makes some sense. But in the long term, western interests that for the sake of expedience surrender textual control to the kind of politically-determined semiotic drift exhibited here (a twirling ice cream cone that, divorced from intent, looks like the Arabic inscription for Allah no more is the Arabic inscription for Allah than a cloud that looks like a sheep is likely to yield a sweater and a pair of wool socks) is a huge mistake—and may one day come to be seen as the kind of quiet defeat in the war against Islamic fundamentalism that led to a much larger, incrementally-established cultural paradigm shift.
We saw this before, with the Red Cross and its surrender to the Red Crescent. And we’ll see it again, too, if we don’t take a stand and regain control of language from the post-structural ideas that pretend to democratize it, but instead simply succeed in making meaning the province of those whose will to demand is stronger than those whose obligation it is to resist.
And when that happens? This happens. Only, y’know, for real.
****
(h/t Tom Pechinski; see also, LGF )
****
update: Jihadwatch graphically compares the Burger King cone design with the Arabic script. Verdict? If finding marks that “look like” the Arabic inscription for “Allah” is enough to launch a jihad, it’s a wonder that many Muslims haven’t declared jihad against just about any kindergartner’s crayon rendering of waves (h/t Dorkafork)
****
update 2: Sadly, No! sets the cone kerfuffle against the Crescent Memorial controversy in order to suggest that those who’ve complained about both are “beyond parody.”
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!
But such an argument (and I use the term loosely, as the whole “argument” is implied) falls flat for precisely the reasons I outline in my post: namely, that the difference is one of intent. To wit: the argument from the anti-Crescent folk proceeds from the idea that the architect intended his Monument to carry with it a particular subtext—in short, that he was hoping to slip some inappropriate political signification into the design. Personally, I’m not convinced, but it’s certainly not too farfetched given what’s been revealed publicly about his political leanings.
Whereas, I don’t think anyone can argue convincingly that Burger King’s graphic design crew set out to suggest—however imperfectly—that Allah is a swirly cone
Though, I’m not even sure why that would be such a bad thing. I mean, were Jesus a swirly cone, I might even follow him myself.
All your words/symbols/lives are belong to us!
I believe CAIR is working to get the offensive and obviously religious “plus sign” stricken from mathematics. They are trying to get the + replaced with a capital C that is slightly thickened in the middle.
Well, that’s what I heard…
~/o Hold the Jihad
Hold the Fatwa
Please keep back the Intifada
All we ask is
that you let us
do things your way
Have it your way,
at Burger King
Have it your way at Burger King o/~
Considering the crescent roll was first made to celebrate a victory over the jihadist hordes, how long will Burger King be able to serve them?
I get what you’re saying, Jeff, but look on the bright side.
If this is, as Akhtar says, his jihad…well, I can do without a swirly ice cream cone logo much more easily than a skyscraper or a busload of innocent people.
I understand your point, tho. Knuckling under is knuckling under.
Here’s their new logo:
http://rightnumberone.blogspot.com/2005/09/burger-king-changes-offending-logo.html
Plus, there are new menu items as well.
In war, you exploit your enemy’s weakness. Our biggest weaknesses, from a certain point of view, are our emphasis on capitalism and news media free of government interference. Recognizing these weaknesses, the Muslims that want to eliminate non-Muslim societies are exploiting those weaknesses to harm us.
They’ve also exploited (and will find better ways to exploit) our judicial system’s Presumption of Innocence, too.
How long before PETA gets all up in BK’s ass now, you reckon?
Not to mention that sometimes the jihad escalates, and it’s no longer enough just to protest swirly cone lids—we must blow up the infidels who once had them on site, to cleanse the restaurant in holy flames!
The real insidiousness, though, happens unseen. As I tried to show with Ilyka and the “sexism” thread, had I not fought back, I would have conceded control of MY words to HER—to the way she chose to frame them.
But just because the signifier allows for it doesn’t make it so; Ilyka resignified my text to make it mean something else. In short, she rewrote it, then blamed me for the revision and used it to attempt to attack my character.
And when that procedure for interpretation becomes institutionalized, it is to the detriment of all of us, in that it allows linguistic ownership to rest with the receiver rather than the utterer, to the reviser rather than the writer, if you will.
Freudian slip? I presume you meant to write that Burger King’s capitulation “defuses” (removes the fuse from) the situation, but you actually wrote “diffuses” (spreads it all around). That is the most likely outcome in the not-so-long run.
Rightnumberone—I linked that in the post. No need to get all redundant on me.
Dr Weevil —
Oops. Thanks.
FUCK EM ALL!! No one has ever been hurt by something that looks like something. Nothing advances your enemy like capitulation by you when you have done nothing wrong!
The Left has made hay with this same tactic. Tax cuts are symbolic of Rethugs hating poor people.
Rethugs are racist because they do not support affirmative action. And on and on and on.
Maybe they could give all of those “caps” that are now worthless to the Muslims to use as butt plugs.
Fuckin’ A!
Well except for that window that looked like an open door that time…
And that time in Amsterdam, I could’ve swore that was a woman…..
And the last election, that Bush guy sure looked like a conservative……
And NCAA mascots are insulting!
Okay, to morally superior patronizing white people, but still.
Does this mean we can still get “gay” back?
It’s not even an exact match of “allah”. Jihadwatch has a comparison here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008141.php
A better example of the Arabic script for “allah” is here:
http://www.zulfakr.com/media/images/buttons/allah.gif
The alif (first “a” in “allah”) is an unconnected straight line on the far right in the Arabic script. This character does not exist on the cone. A vertical line that is connected to the other characters is not an alif (with some exceptions). There’s a certain resemblance, but it is not exact.
I just took a crap that spelled out “Allah” in Arabic.
That’s what I get for eating too much hummus.
Next up is the American flag. It is a symbol of oppression of Islam and represents disrespect to all jihadis. McDonalds golden arches are an outrage to would be martyrs all over the world. They must be covered in burkha like shrouds.
Why is it offensive any way. Not allowed to worship a god that looks like ice cream?
”Cherry Garcia be willing, we will triumph over the infidels!!!”
ZAP – BOLT OF LIGHTING!!!
Swirling Ice Cream cones resemble allah? The theological implications are mind-boggling…ly delicious!
“I just took a crap that spelled out “Allah†in Arabic.”
You simply have to take a picture of it an post it on ratemypoo.com
Also, if you could post the exact sequence of hip gyrations and sphincter contractions necessary for this iconography, I’m sure many here would be most grateful.
So, “allah” written in Arabic is offensive to muslims? That’s what I’m getting from this guy. Apparently it’s so offensive that they have to undertake a peaceful, inner-struggle to scare buisnesses into submission.
But, I say we take this lesson to heart. Let it be known that anything in public that can be seen as a reference to Islam is offensive to Muslims. So if you see a Mosque, level it quick before they get offended.
*Emergency note to BK Research and Development*…
It’s MEGA-Whopper, not MECCA-Whopper! Christ, did any of you guys escape the first round during your elementary school spelling bees?
”…regain control of language from the post-structural ideas that pretend to democratize it, but instead simply succeed in making meaning the province of those whose will to demand is stronger than those whose obligation it is to resist.”
Well said, although I’d like to think of a stronger word than ‘resist’. Our current way of life is unsustainable in a society in which every discussion is predominantly a contest of will.
Wait a minute? We are McDonalds – they are Islam! McDonalds stands for empty calories, low nutritional value, and the power of advertising over quality. Everything we hold dear. They have desecrated the very symbol of our society by comparing it to their god. To arms!
Wait a minute, the symbol of McDonalds is the golden arches. This is just some dumb swirly thing on an ice cream cone.
Never mind.
Hey in my anger I confused McDonalds with Burger King. No I didn’t, they’re the same.
You wont see me at a Burger King again. Appease a muslim lose a customer.
Let be be finale of seem.
There is but one God and he is the Allah of Ice Cream.
I can’t believe how idiotic this one has become.
Will you be wanting to take away my right to complain next?
Adopt a set of freedom loving principles, guys…
Surely you are misspelling the name and meant to write Burqa King?
Who are you talking to, Kip?
Are you saying that criticizing the complainer for a ridiculous complaint is stifling his speech? Are all complaints equally valid? Are all interpretations equally valid?
My principles are manifestly freedom loving. Yours seem to suggest an embrace of relativism that, as I’ve shown before, is a danger to freedom loving principles.
Hold the pickle
Hold the lettuce
Angry Muslims
Might have bled us
Mmmm…, the creamy rich flavor of submission. With sprinkles!
Turing word: age, as in what a strange, inglorious age we now find ourselves.
I’m a Christian conservative if you want to know – not that it should make any difference.
What I’m saying is the complaint is between the ice cream man and his customer. You could justifiably counter-complain that you love that logo (if it were true, eg. perhaps it has nostalgic connations), but to suggest the Muslim man is wrong to complain because his reasons don’t make sense to you, offends my sense of fair play.
If I, as a Christian, was to complain about an item of advertising that had accidentally offended me, and a group of Commies* tried to make political capital out of it, I would expect them to mind their own darn business.
Hey, I think a lot of Muslim cultural beliefs are at odds with our society**, but these guys are here now – our governement at the time invited them – so I would expect them to be treated with the same coutesy as the rest of us.
…Please.
(*I’m not suggesting you are a Commie because I know you’re not, this is an illustration)
(** but not as bad as some of our own home grown ideas)
Muslims were awestruck by seeing Allah’s name in the wave and cap patterns from aerial photos of December’s tsunami. Funny they would be insulted over seeing (I don’t see it) His name in the swirl graphics of a happy IC product and not in killer tidal waves. Maybe the BK American corp doesn’t kill sufficiently en masse to be Mighty, although given the fat content of its menu, it could be a toss-up.
As a Christian, I’m preparing to start a crusade against Taco Bell; the “T” in their name and menu items (especially when printed in the lower case) looks just like the most regonizable symbol of Christianity, the cross. This sort of insult has gone on long enough!
CALL THE SPHINCTER POLICE!!
As a fundamentalist nutcase, I recently noticed that the little “X” that Burger King cuts in the top of soda lids looks like a Cross!!!!!! As in Jesus’s cross!!!!! I’m pretty sure I am gonna prevail in my holy war to get all soft drink lids changed.
And since I am on the topic of retarded observations, have you ever noticed that Allah spelled backwards is “halla”? And I happen to love halla bread– mmmm… challa bread– which happens to be a Jewish food!!!! I am sure there is something to get offended about in all that but I haven’t figured it out.
Kip —
Your answer is nonsensical, frankly. The man had a right to complain. I have the right to point out why his complaint fails as a linguistic construct—and why appeals to the kind of linguistic constructs that allow for such complaints to begin with are so dangerous if they are tolerated.
Why should the man complaining about the ice cream packaging be allowed to complain but me not allowed to point out what’s wrong with the complaint?
I asked you before: are all complaints valid? Are all interpretations valid? If yes, howso? If not, then why should I not be able to argue against those that aren’t valid?
Well, if the corporations are so craven that they cave into these Islamo-fascists without a fight, it hardly bespeaks much of our resolve to fight them, considering how beholden the right is to capitalisms and corporations. Like that so called activists in California who magically discovered graffiti in her used Amazon couran right after the couran flushing flap. What did Amazon do, did they even suspect a hoax? Nop they immediately caved into the Muslim Eva Braun’s complaint and trashed one of their subcontractors.
I’m surprised to see you buying what the Crescent Police are selling.
We’re used to seeing identity-politics leftists (the Larry Summers affair) and jihad-happy Islamicists (Allah in the ice cream logo) using hysteria to cow their enemies. But it was a rude awakening in the last week to see respected opinion shapers from the right side of the aisle resorting to the same tactics without bothering to get their facts straight.
Spinning out of control
I wonder how they might feel about this company logo:
[link wouldn’t render]
Saw the signage on a fence at UC Davis med center. Certainly not appropriate for such a sensitive institution.
Unconvincing at best, Sissy.
I read arabic and yes, the “swirl” looks very similar to the word “Allah.” This can only be due to two possibilities:
1)Sheer coincidence
or
2) Intentional design
Even if it was intentional, I don’t see any malicious intent here (it’s quite possible the graphic artist who designed the fool thing was literate in arabic and thought it an act of religious reverence) so… the big stink is over what again? A graphic that resembles a word in another language?
Jeff is spot-on about the dangers of conceding moral authority to every random, crackpot complainer. Where’s the offense here? It simply doesn’t exist.
Sissy writes:
What I wrote is, “Personally, I’m not convinced, but it’s certainly not too farfetched given what’s been revealed publicly about his political leanings.”
So I haven’t bought into it; I’m just pointing out that, linguistically speaking, the two complaints, which seem similar on their face, are relying on different interpretive assumptions for their force.
The problem with the flight 93 design is that it is a memorial dedicated to people that were killed as a direct result of Islamic extremism. The crecent isn’t an imagined shape, it is named in the memorial. It is also a powerful symbol of Islam.
I think it was B Moe who stated the Arizona memorial isn’t “The Rising Sun of Warmth”. Similarly, a holocaust memorial wouldn’t have the “Swastika of Luck”, and a memorial to Nanjing wouldn’t be have “The Phallus of Asian Solidarity”.
No matter how lovely the aesthetic may be, there is simply no need for it in that particular memorial.
But that is not to say that the symbols can’t be used in everyday life (and before you pounce on the swastika, it is a buddhist design as well).
And being offended any time you see something which can be misconstrued to be something else is an exhausting endeavor.
I’m not sure why BK felt they needed to capitulate in this case. Well, yes I am.
Jeff,
I can’t believe you haven’t come up with a Jesusface swirly ice cream design!
I was willing to believe the crescent in the memorial was a coincidence- until it turned out it was also oriented directly toward Mecca.
And anybody has a right to complain, yeah, but this fucker threatened a jihad. Personally I think they should arrest him for making terroristic threats, maybe that isn’t a crime over there, dunno.
Can’t claim credit for the “Rising Sun of Warmth”, the “Phallus of Asian Solidarity” just made me waste some good Scotch, though.
I don’t really care about Linguistic Constructs and such, and arguments that use that sort of modernistic jargon make my eyelids droop, but nevertheless…
The point is not whether he had a right to complain, or whether you have a right to criticise his beliefs. We all have a right to speak freely*.
But to suggest his right to complain is dangerous is just stupid. And makes you the one who has overstepped the line, because it seems to me you’re suggesting it’s his right to privately complain on the grounds of offence, rather than the content of the complaint itself, which is invalid.
If he involved government or the courts I would agree with you. As it is, the issue is between him and the ice cream man – why should you even care?
McCarthyism did the (righteous) battle against Communism a lot of harm.** You can do similar harm to your cause by overblowing trivial incidents like this. You can get on your ideological high horse about it, but old fashioned fair minded folk will know I’m right.
(* Even those like ‘Sphincter Police’ and ‘Fundamentalist Nutcase’ above, who lack the wit to know how to use it. Hey, I’m pretty sure you guys just proved my point, and you weren’t even trying. Well done.)
(**Assuming you guys are not commies and would get this point – although the jargon you use makes me wonder.)
The Brits certainly wear their dhimmitude well.
“And, now, I have to go appear on a tortilla in Mexico…”
Kip, it’s not his right to complain that’s dangerous, it’s the reasoning behind the company taking his complaint as valid. This does have something to do with the content of the complaint, and is not about his right to complain. I don’t see where you coming from on that part, I don’t see where Jeff has said anything about his right to complain.
The complaint we have is not so much with the (nutty) ice-cream complainer, its with:
A. Burger King for failing the “you’re being silly, sir” test, the grease in the wheels of our diverse civilization machine.
B. The sort of, on a small scale, lack of common sense, and on a larger one, appeasement-first reflex that gives unreasonable and worse people and movements too much power in our shared society that this example signifies in our view.
Go along too much just to get along and you won’t end up even with that. Bullies like to test their limits – the worst thing we can do is not to give them any.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no right to not be offended. Seems like most are beating around that elephant. Pop always said, “Fuck ‘em if they can’t take a joke.”
Speaking of constructs, I just read a post (I can’t remember where) that throws a whole different light on this. The poster pointed out that the bright spot in this whackadoodle brouhaha
is that when you turn the Arabic “Allah” 90 degrees, it becomes a symbol for ice cream. I am beginning to like this “relativism”…
Kip —
You’ve now successfully missed the point on so many occasions that I’m forced to conclude that were the point dressed in big floppy shoes and a red nose and stuffed into a tiny car with 15 other almost identical points , you’d still miss the damn thing, even if the stuffed point car rolled over your foot and up your leg and parked on your abdomen.
Interesting that you’d chose to seize on my choice of language, though. Perhaps instead of complaining about how it makes your eyelids troop you might concentrate on understanding it. Because then you wouldn’t come across so incredibly arrogant, even while you remain almost mind-bogglingly confused.
Well this is exactly the sort of issue that I’m happy with religious fanatics working on.
They can censor my ice cream packaging all they like.
I don’t think there’s a slippery slope that goes from ice cream packages to torturing gays to death or burning women with acid.
It’s like Howard Dean and bike paths – that was probably the last issue he was involved with that he was competent to have an opinion on. By all means lets encourage people to stick with issues at their level competence.
I mean, were Jesus a swirly cone, I might even follow him myself.
Man, can’t believe it took 57 comments for this:
CONOPHOBE!!!
Quite possibly there there’s more to this affair than meets the eye, so I’ll conclude with some more abstract points.
I don’t think you can fault a company for obliging a complaining customer. They have chance to to create great customer relations with a whole section of society and all they have to do is reprint a bit of packaging or amend an advertisement? Cheap at the price, more of them should understand this. After all, the ice cream man wants to sell ice cream, not fight ideological battles and good for him if he gets that point.
As for the wider issue. Every smart commander uses a carrot and a stick to overcome his enemies.
What we need to get across to Muslims, many of whom are morally conservative and there’s nothing wrong with that, is that they can have an influence on society and their communities by playing by our rules – and I would include legal expressions of opinion directed to businesses as within the rules. But if they step outside the rules – as in violence, intimidation, or stupid politicians and judges who try to subvert our historical rights, then we should use the stick.
It seems to me there isn’t enough of either.
Finally, the terrorist and his propagandists, suppliers and supporters are my enemy. Whatever private view I hold of his religion, the Muslim who follows society’s rules is not my enemy but my neighbour.
(And Larry, it’s true we have the right to offend, and we also have the right to take offence. And although you might be offended, I have to point out, that with instruction like that, your Pop didn’t raise you very well.)
Ha ha. All those clowns in car.
That’s great Jeff. I don’t agree with you (neither that I misunderstood your point nor that I criticised your use of jargon in absense of a reply), but you deserve to win a debating point for such a colourful image.
(doffs floppy hat and exits in oversize shoes)
The slippery slope would be in successfully resignifying what it means to “torture” “gays” or “burn” women by making the ground of language relative to particular interpretive communities.
After all, one man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter.”
It’s ok, Kip. Being afraid to stand up against a position proscribed by .00009% of the demographic of the consumer always justifies spending mucho dinero. It’s in the stars.
Kip, dude,
The Islamic fuckwit has all the right in the world to be offended by whatever offends him. For example, the fact your wife (assuming you’re married) works, votes, drives a car and doesn’t wear a burka offends him.
So when are you gonnna stop your wife from working, voting, driving, and make her wear a burksa because some Islamic fuckwit is offended?
Never?
So, despite your overweening sensitivity to Islamic fuckwits and against all odds, you’ve more balls than Burka King. They should have told the Islamic fuckwit to pound sand.
Literally. And then theaten to have him arrested for threatening terrorist-jihad against them.
Instead, they caved.
That’s the point, dude.
Tim – I like yours more better.
B Moe
Well, someone said something about the Arizona memorial not being shaped like the sun.
But you’ve made me laugh (and think) fairly frequently. So I’ll give you the credit anyway. Consider an advance on some credit I’ll forget to give you in the future.
OMG, Kip. I’ve figured it out. You can’t get the point or see the joke because all your energy is consumed keeping your asshole slammed shut. You’ve got me confused now. Confused with someone who’d give a crusty fuck what a self-satisfied prig like you thought about how I was raised. My previous comment wasn’t aimed at you.
Hold the cone packaging in the correct manner as if you were reading it, i.e. the ice cream is upright, not on its side.
Does it look like Allah now?
No.
It looks like an ice cream cone.
Over in Iraq my platoon and I used to laugh at a storefront sign; it was in Arabic, of course, but the font and sizing made it look like it said “Culo”, or “ass” in Spanish. Perhaps my comrades of Mexican descent should have blown up the store in protest.
And no, I’m not entirely sure what the store sold, I never got around to asking our translator. It was probably a baby-photography studio or a wedding boutique, though; the only two industries in Sadr City are getting married to a 14 year old and fathering six malnourished children by her over the course of eight or nine years, hence the large amount of those aformentioned businesses in the district.
I didn’t want to make another post but Tim, you’ve forced me.
Now, first of all, I’m not against your position, but you need to be sharper in your thinking. Your analogy is weak.
If someone criticises my family. That’s their right, although I’d recommend they do it politely. For example if my kids were going around the neighbourhood swearing at people like Pop’s kids, a neighbour of whatever religion would be justified in complaining and I would be a poor father for not considering such a complaint.
If the complaint was unreasonable (as in the example of insisting my wife not drive) I would ignore it. Anyway, no one tells my wife what to do, not even me, so I wouldn’t waste my breathe.
However, if I was a businessman and the person was complaining about the officially sanctioned conduct of my staff, say an overzealous branch manager who had all his sales girls dress in skimpy tops and mini skirts, I would probably give the complaint much more weight than I would if a similar complaint were made about – for example – my adult daughter.
My daughter and my wife are a private citizens and can do as she pleases within the law. The business is not required to behave any differently, but I for one, would hope most businesses would.
Anyway, I’m on your side generally (I think), I just think you all have this one issue wrong.
(…and Larry, that’s really really funny. First you say there is no right to be offended, and then you immediately take offence. You crack me up! That clown car will be along soon, you should hop on board!)
Sorry, Kip. Strike three, you’re out. You still don’t get it. When I say I don’t give a crusty fuck what you think, that means it really doesn’t matter to me what you think. Clearer?
I just posted this over at Sadly, No!:
One problem with equating complaints about the crescent memorial with complaints about the Burger King ice cream package is that the two items are vastly different in terms of significance, meaning, and longevity.
One is, well, a memorial. It will commemorate Americans who heroically fought back against an enemy who launched an attack on this country based, in part, on an Islamist rationale.
Given that the memorial is meant to last for ages and stand for certain principles, and given the role that radical Islamists played in the events inspiring its construction, it is entirely approrpiate to ask whether it is serving that end, or if it is in fact sending an inappropriate or mixed message, intentionally or not.
The Burger King ice cream lid, on the other hand, is designed, simply, to package a tasty portion of ice cream. It has nothing to do with remembering any event, and has no connection to any religion. It not meant to send any message (other than “ice cream inside”). And after use, it is thrown away and forgotten, if indeed it was ever consciously considered.
When it comes to scrutinizing their meaning, should we equate a war memorial with a fast-food wrapper? Sadly, no.
That does it. I’m going to go get me some ice cream.
Jeff distinguishes the complaints about the Crescent Memorial from the complaints about the Burger King ice cream cone ad based on the intent of the designer.
To me, the two cases are more distinguishable based on materiality: The use of a religious symbol – intentional or not – in a memorial to the people who were murdered in the name of that religion is outrageous. The use of a religious symbol – intentional or not – on an ad for an ice cream cone, is banal.
My complaint with Burger King is that the company has now sanctioned the moral equivalence between the Crescent Memorial and an ice cream cone ad. That is the slippery slope, and Burger King’s cowardice has moved us all down that path a little more.
The proper response to the graphically challenged gentleman would be to listen politely to his complaint, and assure him you’ll look into the matter rught away. Then giggle when he leaves.
Dat some stupid shit, man.
Companies can decide how to deal with unhappy customers. The decision is usually made according to the bottom line: how many customers will be offended and how much money this will cost them in sales.
Burger King Holdings Inc., the parent company, is private and independently owned by an equity sponsor group comprised of Texas Pacific Group, Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners. If we contact Burger King and the equity owners and explain politely that an attitude of dhimmitude will lose them our business, they’ll have to decide who buys more burgers. Make sure they know this is being publicized in the blogosphere. Marketing geeks know all about blogs these days.
Companies, particularly those in the retail food industry are very sensitive to public image. That’s probably why BK responded in such a knee jerk fashion. As Mr. Aswad (tempted to type Asswad, but that would be juvenile) proved, BK will respond to pressure. So we should pressure them ourselves.
There’s a Dunkin’ Donuts near my house that is under kosher supervision. When the corporate HQ brought out some new breakfast sandwiches they tried to pressure the franchisee to carry the full menu which would have meant that the shop couldn’t be kosher anymore. It would have meant at least a 40% drop in business for him. So the local Jewish community started a letter writing and email campaign to the parent company, which backed down.
Part of the absurdity of this case was the fact that most of the Dunkin mixes and products are already being kosher supervised at the manufacturing level. That’s why it’s possible for one of the stores to be kosher.
It’s funny. Observant Jews regard the name of God in Hebrew to be holy. So much so that they don’t write it out, except in actual prayerbooks. Otherwise, it’s always abbreviated. People whose Hebrew name includes one of God’s holy names will sometimes even abbreviate the spelling of their own name. That’s why you see some folks spell it G-d. But I’ve never heard of any Jews that are hyper sensitive to squiggles on Nike shoes or iconic ice cream scoops.
Maybe slightly OT, but what the hell.
Thanks for the continued excellent work, Jeff, and thanks for sticking around, file closer.
TW “added”, as in this blog has added MUCH to the level of conversation.
Hmmmm, if that coney thing upsets them, then I’m pretty sure that the marital aid I altered for my wife, that has Allah’s name in raised, bumpy letters, which she only uses during her issue, lightly oiled with an Astroglide/bacon fat solution, might really upset them.
Come ululate on this, bitches…
The slippery slope would be in successfully resignifying what it means to “torture†“gays†or “burn†women by making the ground of language relative to particular interpretive communities.
I think you have to find SOME arena in which religious people have a say.
As an analogy, in Canada there isn’t a constitutional wall between church and state, and because of this, there has always been some religious teaching in public schools, at least in some communities and some provinces.
Yet Canadian society is arguably more secular than the United State with no hot “culture war”.
I would argue that the fact that religious people feel completely excluded from public policy and besieged in the United States lead to a backlash and the culture war that didn’t happen in Canada.
Consider that Canada started from more or less the same colonial beginning as the US and is the same sort of country of immigrants.
My point is that your “no tolerance for religious nonsense” attitude is unnecessarily strict and creates a response.
Anyway nothing here is important. This is just a Muslim “Tinky Winkey” scandal. Everyone is free to take a side because the matter is of no importance and has no effects on anyone.
Um, that’s not my attitude. In fact, I’ve made the exact opposite argument (for instance, wrt the Pledge). Religious people can have a say; but when they say something like “my religion is offended by your ice cream wrapper—even when the ice cream wrapper has nothing whatever to do with their religion—I don’t simply give in just to show my “tolerance.”
Instead, I say go ahead and practice your religion. Go ahead and put up your decorations. Go ahead and say your Pledge. But leave your mitt off my ice cream wrapper. That doesn’t belong to you.
And yes, it does matter when we surrender language to those who misuse it just because they are willing to scream and threaten and throw a fit. It weakens language. And it trivializes meaning.
And yes, it does matter when we surrender language to those who misuse it just because they are willing to scream and threaten and throw a fit. It weakens language. And it trivializes meaning.
Hmm, if this is language then afka-prince really has a name.
Oops I forgot the italics around my quote.
I do mind the Jihad part of this story. But I say send the Muslim Council of Britain chasing after ice cream trucks all day and get them away from making excuses for terrorists in Israel and all those other major sins that Islamic organization can’t seem to resist.
Darn it!
I give in! I’ll preview!
The prince link was supposed to go here damn it!
Joshua … “no hot “culture war— ??? Please …. it’s been simmering for 250 years.
Diana, compared with the US?
Best blog laugh I’ve ever had. Thanks for the late night humor. Of all the things in this world to fume over, it is hard to believe an ice-cream logo could do the trick. The guy better never leave his house.
Arlene
Joshua … yes, and getting hotter. Long stories, but with the “multi-cultural” policy of our government there’s are incendiary issues brewing all across the country … not just the old franco/anglo issues.
Dude. You did not really write the words “incrementally-established cultural paradigm shift,” did you?
Man. You sound like a college professor. %-)
I almost went with “a much larger, incrementally-established COCK COCKITY COCK COCK COCK,” but I was afraid Ilyka and Meryl might be lurking, and then I’d have to endure another week of tolerance training.
“But if they step outside the rules – as in violence, intimidation, or stupid politicians and judges who try to subvert our historical rights, then we should use the stick.”
You mean like threatening jihad over an ice cream wrapper? OK, glad we’re (finally) on the same page, Kitaroo…
Y’know, if people want to see a virgin Mary on the side of an old corn silo, that’s their bidness. They start threatening jihad against the farmer if he doesn’t tear down every silo on his land, ostensibly for the purpose of getting their rocks off when the farmer knuckles under, that’s something else entirely.
You don’t bring a nice, welcoming throat to a pissing contest. Well, unless you’re kinky like that, which I, for one, would rather not hear about.
I can’t believe you haven’t come up with a Jesusface swirly ice cream design!
Rightwingsparkle, I did, sort of.
Diana, remember Buccanan’s speech at the Republican National convention in ‘92? I can’t imagine anything like that happening in Canada.
To be fair Buccanan was kicked out of the party for that speech (for the racist part, not the anti-secular ranting), but the audience was so enthusiastic about his “Culture War” tantrums calling for the destruction of secular society that he got enthusiastic response from the crowd despite the frank and hidious racism of what he said after the anti-secular rants (“you don’t give those sorts of people head start programs, you send them to jail!”).
nightstudies – Re: ‘92 RNC … any reference? I don’t remember off-hand … I’ll look.
To be fair … Buchanan’s a nut shy … which is “NOT A GOOD THING”
Would an ‘Alahu Ak-bar” be a frozen confection covered with exploding nuts?
Funny how the infidels didn’t threaten a jihad (or the like) about the stupid Crescent memorial, isn’t it?
EXACTLY.
Besides, if we saw the Virgin Mary on an ice cream wrapper here, we’d just SELL IT ON EBAY.
They should consider it a compliment that something so benign, so sweet and good as swirly ice cream could be misconstrued as “Allah,” rather than, say, skid marks. Or Laurence’s poop.
My google mojo is failing.
I remember the speech because CBC’s “As it Happens” played the speech in its entirety without comment because it was so scary, and stood on its own. “For the Record” they call that segment.
Pat has what is supposedly his ‘92 Rep-Convention speech here, but it’s been bawlderized of the part that got him kicked out of the Republican party.
And though the term culture war was apparently popularized by that speech that phrase doesn’t appear in it, exactly:
My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so, we have to come home, and stand beside him.
I don’t know if the cultural war parts have been as revised as the racist talk about the riots, but I do remember the speech being longer and scarier than that “transcript”.
Though I guess that quote I gave is as scary as culture war talk can get, especially if you can imagine the Buchanan’s intensity as he emphasized phrases like “religious war”.
And then segwaying into a bit that smeared the entire black population of LA as rioters and assumed that black preschoolers already deserve jail not reading programs made the speech as fascistic in tone (and hell, content) as it’s possible to get.
From Glenn’s link, I expected this to be about school textbooks. I was ready to agree that religious fundamentalism has no more right that PC fundamentalism to write textbooks.
I’m all for American fundamentalism though: patriotism, independence, tolerance and democracy. As far as I can see, however, people like this Rashad Akhtar doesn’t believe in any of those things.
Burger “King” doesn’t sound very democratic either. Maybe fundamentalist Americans should be offended by knuckling under to people who worship ice cream cones and take their business somewhere else. I’m going to Wendy’s.
Sometimes I make swirling patterns on the surface of my milkshake with a straw. Should I be looking over my shoulder?
Can’t seem to get my setup to recognise your trackback URL, Jeff, so I’ll leave it here.
Read this or you’ll die on the way to work. You’ll get hit by a bus – unless there are no buses on your route. Or you work from home. Er, in which case it’ll probably be a malfuctioning toaster. Anyway, watch out bub.