Derby #182: Fire

The Flaming Framer

no

Rejected because: no

add a comment

Comments

melquam


quality posts: 1 Private Messages melquam
Re: The Flaming Framer


Flame on!

CapSea


quality posts: 54 Private Messages CapSea
Re: The Flaming Framer


I don't know why you thought this was a good idea, but let me know what stocks you buy so I can make sure to sell them all as quickly as possible.

melquam


quality posts: 1 Private Messages melquam
CapSea wrote:I don't know why you thought this was a good idea, but let me know what stocks you buy so I can make sure to sell them all as quickly as possible.


I'm sorry, I guess I don't see what is objectionable about this drawing.

CapSea


quality posts: 54 Private Messages CapSea
melquam wrote:I'm sorry, I guess I don't see what is objectionable about this drawing.


Then I would take a few days and reflect on what went wrong in your upbringing.

melquam


quality posts: 1 Private Messages melquam
CapSea wrote:Then I would take a few days and reflect on what went wrong in your upbringing.


CapSea,

Is it the fact that the character is effeminate? Is it the title? Is it the rainbow? Is it the possibility that the character might be hoopy?

I'm wondering if the rejection was because it could be seen as offensive to hoopy people or because you're offended by hoopy people?

I know you didn't personally reject the shirt, but you seem to be the voice of the rejectionator and have a theory of why it was rejected.

If you are going to respond, I'd appreciate if you keep the personal insults to my upbringing and my judgement to a minimum. Thanks.

melquam


quality posts: 1 Private Messages melquam
melquam wrote:CapSea,

Is it the fact that the character is effeminate? Is it the title? Is it the rainbow? Is it the possibility that the character might be hoopy?

I'm wondering if the rejection was because it could be seen as offensive to hoopy people or because you're offended by hoopy people?

I know you didn't personally reject the shirt, but you seem to be the voice of the rejectionator and have a theory of why it was rejected.

If you are going to respond, I'd appreciate if you keep the personal insults to my upbringing and my judgement to a minimum. Thanks.


The woot editor used the word hoopy for a synonym of "happy".

CapSea


quality posts: 54 Private Messages CapSea
melquam wrote:CapSea,

Is it the fact that the character is effeminate? Is it the title? Is it the rainbow? Is it the possibility that the character might be hoopy?

I'm wondering if the rejection was because it could be seen as offensive to hoopy people or because you're offended by hoopy people?

I know you didn't personally reject the shirt, but you seem to be the voice of the rejectionator and have a theory of why it was rejected.

If you are going to respond, I'd appreciate if you keep the personal insults to my upbringing and my judgement to a minimum. Thanks.


It's obscenely offensive to homosexuals and the idea that that would confuse you baffles me. The definition of flaming is "a potentially pejorative adjective for a homosexual man whose behavior is reflected in a stereotypical "flamboyancy"" It's quite literally blatant homophobia on a shirt.

renegadetim


quality posts: 12 Private Messages renegadetim
CapSea wrote:It's obscenely offensive to homosexuals and the idea that that would confuse you baffles me. The definition of flaming is "a potentially pejorative adjective for a homosexual man whose behavior is reflected in a stereotypical "flamboyancy"" It's quite literally blatant homophobia on a shirt.


Really? Calm down...

How is this offensive to homosexuals? A "POTENTIAL pejorative adjective"? Well, are you saying this is like african americans using the N word? Because, homosexuals and lots of other people use "Flaming" as an adjective that aren't belittling homosexuals. So homosexuals are allowed to say it, but if someone else does, it's "pejorative"?

And homophobia on a shirt? What!?

In my opinion, I'd think ONLY homosexuals would want to wear this shirt.

However, I personally have no homosexual clout, as a straight guy, so my opinion here may not mean much. I personally don't see the big deal here though.

The artist used a visual pun to fit the derby. I doubt he/she is homophobic. Relax

And to say clearly someone found it offensive, because it got rejected, doesn't do much for me because you were probably the person responsible for it.

melquam


quality posts: 1 Private Messages melquam
CapSea wrote:It's obscenely offensive to homosexuals and the idea that that would confuse you baffles me. The definition of flaming is "a potentially pejorative adjective for a homosexual man whose behavior is reflected in a stereotypical "flamboyancy"" It's quite literally blatant homophobia on a shirt.


Phew... at least we're on the same side of the fence and I don't have to argue with someone who is homophobic.

That being said, being flaming or flamboyant is not negative, it's just a state of being. Just because the term flaming, and the rainbow are associated with hoopy people doesn't make their usage an insult nor does it make it offensive. If that were the case, there could be no depiction of a flamboyant hoopy person that would be acceptable by your and/or woot's standards. And that, in my opinion, is slightly ridiculous.

The character that I drew was not doing anything offensive, salacious, sexual, or negative. In fact, he was purposely drawn as someone who is happy and proud of who he is. Even his little dog is happy and proud.

I'm not sure if you remember Jewelwing's submission with the baby carots. Woot rejected that shirt too. And those were just flamboyant carrots. People come in all flavors. I think the rejectionator should be a little more mindful of that.

*NOTE* I know their reason for Jewelwing's rejection was "off topic" but the design was a Stephen Colbert reference to a fear of baby carrots turning him hoopy (woot edited). Very much on topic. I personally think they just reject anything with any homosexual references.

melquam


quality posts: 1 Private Messages melquam
renegadetim wrote:Really? Calm down...

How is this offensive to homosexuals? A "POTENTIAL pejorative adjective"? Well, are you saying this is like african americans using the N word? Because, homosexuals and lots of other people use "Flaming" as an adjective that aren't belittling homosexuals. So homosexuals are allowed to say it, but if someone else does, it's "pejorative"?

And homophobia on a shirt? What!?

In my opinion, I'd think ONLY homosexuals would want to wear this shirt.

However, I personally have no homosexual clout, as a straight guy, so my opinion here may not mean much. I personally don't see the big deal here though.

The artist used a visual pun to fit the derby. I doubt he/she is homophobic. Relax

And to say clearly someone found it offensive, because it got rejected, doesn't do much for me because you were probably the person responsible for it.


I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for the support.

CapSea


quality posts: 54 Private Messages CapSea
renegadetim wrote:Really? Calm down...

How is this offensive to homosexuals? A "POTENTIAL pejorative adjective"? Well, are you saying this is like african americans using the N word? Because, homosexuals and lots of other people use "Flaming" as an adjective that aren't belittling homosexuals. So homosexuals are allowed to say it, but if someone else does, it's "pejorative"?

And homophobia on a shirt? What!?

In my opinion, I'd think ONLY homosexuals would want to wear this shirt.

However, I personally have no homosexual clout, as a straight guy, so my opinion here may not mean much. I personally don't see the big deal here though.

The artist used a visual pun to fit the derby. I doubt he/she is homophobic. Relax

And to say clearly someone found it offensive, because it got rejected, doesn't do much for me because you were probably the person responsible for it.


I don't work for woot, ergo it's impossible for me to reject it. Also, you're wrong.

CapSea


quality posts: 54 Private Messages CapSea
melquam wrote:Phew... at least we're on the same side of the fence and I don't have to argue with someone who is homophobic.

That being said, being flaming or flamboyant is not negative, it's just a state of being. Just because the term flaming, and the rainbow are associated with hoopy people doesn't make their usage an insult nor does it make it offensive. If that were the case, there could be no depiction of a flamboyant hoopy person that would be acceptable by your and/or woot's standards. And that, in my opinion, is slightly ridiculous.

The character that I drew was not doing anything offensive, salacious, sexual, or negative. In fact, he was purposely drawn as someone who is happy and proud of who he is. Even his little dog is happy and proud.

I'm not sure if you remember Jewelwing's submission with the baby carots. Woot rejected that shirt too. And those were just flamboyant carrots. People come in all flavors. I think the rejectionator should be a little more mindful of that.

*NOTE* I know their reason for Jewelwing's rejection was "off topic" but the design was a Stephen Colbert reference to a fear of baby carrots turning him hoopy (woot edited). Very much on topic. I personally think they just reject anything with any homosexual references.


I can't help you understand this, but you're wrong.

renegadetim


quality posts: 12 Private Messages renegadetim
CapSea wrote:I don't work for woot, ergo it's impossible for me to reject it. Also, you're wrong.


Of course I am... Nice one. I meant you probably tattled on it, which was enough for woot to reject it. But, woot could have rejected it otherwise I suppose.

melquam


quality posts: 1 Private Messages melquam
CapSea wrote:I can't help you understand this, but you're wrong.


It's difficult to argue with "you're wrong."

Although I'm not the spokesperson for all homosexuals, I would tend to agree with renegadetim when he said my shirt design would possibly mostly appeal to homosexuals. Not offend them.

Obviously you are against homophobia, but that doesn't mean need to take it upon yourself to feel offended for everyone. Especially when no offense occurred.

The depiction of flamboyancy, open homosexuality, effeminate men, macho women, same sex coupling, rainbows, triangles, etc. does not automatically constitute homophobia.

So, I kindly reject your "you're wrong," and wish you well. On to the next derby.

More Derby Entries

By date:

By rank:

Thumbnail