Bangkok Shop Owner Defends Right to Sell Controversial Shirts

[StandardIssue]

4 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Great shirts. Ill look for those in the USA and up to Condition Red.

Here's a preview

[hotchilli]

Just now, Ralf001 said:

 

WWII running Thailand ?

 

Sorry I do not understand what you are babbling on about.

Foreigners are complaining about past dictators being stylised on T-shirts upsetting tourists from those locations, and the history reminder..

If she sold T-shirts with Japanese soldiers forcing slave labour in occupied Thailand during WWII she could have Thais complaining too.. 

[billd766]

1 hour ago, thongplay said:

She does NOT have the right to sell what she wants. For example suppose she had T shirts depicting anti Buddhist images? Would she demand the right to sell those?

 

Or other obscene or distasteful images, depicting sad war or child images.

 

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Is no one sensitive to these issues, does no one care?

Of course she does. It is HER shop in HER country and she has probably been in the business for a while. If she wants to sell goods banned in Thailand, that is up to her. If she did  and was reported, fined and jailed that would be her problem also, not yours or anybody else's.

 

Stop with the nit picking and whataboutery. Don't project your values in somebody else's country. 

 

She seems to sell what the majority of customers want. If she didn't, then she would go out of business. She is making a living the best way that she can.

 

If what she sells offends you personally, then just walk away from the shop and don't buy anything from there. Whilst you may be offended, the people that buy her stock are obviously not offended as they are buyers.

 

There are many things worldwide that offend me, but I live with them as other people are not offended. It is their choice and mine also.

 

 

[Wrwest]

18 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

I recall when stalls were selling Osama Bin Laden T-shirts.... 

 

I thought at the time...  there's a segment of society here that is incredibly juvenile and insensitive to world events.

 

Of course, a simple T-Shirt can't harm anyone, but the imagery is powerful and this shows extreme ignorance - instead of defending herself, the vendor should be ashamed and embarrassed, as should anyone who purchases such items.

 

 

Brought to mind the Mao and Che T-shirts of an earlier era.

[richard_smith237]

37 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I think the shop owners where a Male and Female -  They do have the right to sell whatever they chose within the legal confines.

 

However, thats the whole point of the thread and initial discussion - There's a moral grey area in which such images exists - Pol Pot, Che, Osama etc have all been mentioned in this discussion, then there are the 'language T-shirt's'...  It is accepted to walk around with a T-shirt that says F**K the World or perhaps worse ?

 

This all falls under freedom of speech and freedom of expression and in order to maintain that we also have to respect it and think.

 

Expand  

Foreigners have no right whatsoever to be telling locals what they can or cannot sell. Extreme arrogance.

 

You are missing the point by resorting to baseless accusations instead of attempting to grasp the simple matter of basic decency.

 

The usual lines - “We are guests in this country,” “foreigners have no right,” or “if you don’t like it, go home” - are not legitimate arguments. They are cheap jabs, often made by those more interested in scoring points than engaging in thoughtful discussion.

 

None of these claims justify what is clearly wrong - this couple is selling T-shirts that can reasonably be seen as offensive.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with nationality and everything to do with fundamental human decency. She is surely aware of what Hitler did - and if, by some miracle, she wasn't, she most certainly is now - yet I suspect the offensive T-shirts remain on sale regardless.

 

Consider this as a simple parallel: Would it be acceptable for her to sell a T-shirt depicting a deceased loved one of yours, accompanied by offensive or mocking words? Of course not.

 

While this may be an extreme comparison, it illustrates an important truth - what one person dismisses as trivial can cause deep offence to others. And this is precisely why freedom of expression must always carry with it a measure of responsibility - the responsibility not to be deliberately offensive simply because you can.

 

When I open up some of the posts made by 'ignored posters' its patently clear that there are those who would take active steps to deliberately be offensive - thus proving why they are on ignore in the first place, their content has no place in decent discussion.

 

I reject the argument that foreigners have no right to voice concerns. In fact, I would say that no private individual, regardless of nationality, has the unilateral right to dictate what can or cannot be sold. That responsibility lies with the relevant authorities - those tasked with upholding decency and common standards within society.

 

If policed correctly, i.e. if the Police here were not so apathetic and lazy, this may be seen as causing public offence, disturbance, or even perceived as inciting hate, authorities could act on that if they so wished - they don't because they are lazy.

 

But, there is precedence of the such actions where ignorant insensitivity has led to the need to react with a decent response and a apology. 

 

In 2011, students in Chiang Mai held a Nazi-themed sports day parade (yes, really). When photos went viral internationally, it caused a scandal and formal apologies were issued by the school and Thai officials.

 

 

Just because we've seen a few random market stalls selling this stuff, do not think it's actually accepted - it's more tolerated due to misunderstanding, not approval.

 

 

 

 

[Don Giovanni]

37 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Foreigners have no right whatsoever to be telling locals what they can or cannot sell. Extreme arrogance.

Tiresome.

 

The Don.

[skytrooper70]

17 hours ago, johng said:

 

The bloke in the video certainly looks like a bully glad they gave him the elbow.

As a physically fit Ukrainian, why isn’t he home, fighting to defend his country from Putin? Their military is critically short of fighting members.

[RUSirius]

Definitely go for Putin and Hit ler Tshirts..but I don't wear tshirts in public unless on the beach

[Ralf001]

10 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Foreigners are complaining about past dictators being stylised on T-shirts upsetting tourists from those locations, and the history reminder..

If she sold T-shirts with Japanese soldiers forcing slave labour in occupied Thailand during WWII she could have Thais complaining too.. 

 

so your post.... "Japanese running Thailand"... means what ?

[NoDisplayName]

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

While this may be an extreme comparison, it illustrates an important truth - what one person dismisses as trivial can cause deep offence to others. And this is precisely why freedom of expression must always carry with it a measure of responsibility - the responsibility not to be deliberately offensive simply because you can.

 

No, it illustrates that freedom of expression is not freedom if limited to what the current crop in charge deem acceptable.

 

“I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

 

The above would go great on a T-shirt worn by folks burning down T-shirt shops.

[RUSirius]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

She is surely aware of what Hitler did

 

I doubt she is aware of what 'Hitler did'. Bears no relevance to any Thai nor Thailand historically as well. Finally, Thailand was non aligned but leaned Axis anyway

 

 

[RUSirius]

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

If policed correctly, i.e. if the Police here were not so apathetic and lazy, this may be seen as causing public offence, disturbance, or even perceived as inciting hate, authorities could act on that if they so wished - they don't because they are lazy.

 

Nonsense.

 

Thailand simply hasn't been polluted by the same mold and mildew that has enveloped the west. It's not important because it's truly not important

[richard_smith237]

16 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

They're a thread to common decency - something you appear not to care about.

 

"Decency" is  a malleable and flexible concept. Once person's "decency" is another person's stupidity.

 

Much like morality is dependent on perspective. To the snake eating the mouse it's just dinner, to the mouse it's cold blooded murder.

 

The problem arises when some people feel their interpretation of "decency" or morality has an absolute value. Those days are gone.

 

Perhaps they believe those days are behind them - yet the very fact that this debate continues suggests otherwise.

 

Your argument on morality feels somewhat shallow, as it hinges on a cross-species principle. By the same logic, one could justify humans eating steak, chicken, or any other animal product. The foundation of the argument seems to miss the crux of the issue.

 

That said, I do agree with your point regarding those who treat their sense of decency or morality as universal truths. They are not.

Concepts of decency and morality exist on a spectrum, shaped by location, nationality, culture - even by time itself.

 

Much of the tension lies in this grey area, yet it is important to recognise that extremes do exist. There are actions and symbols that are, by most reasonable standards, unequivocally indecent.

 

Consider, for example, the symbol of Hitler. In Thailand, due to differing historical and cultural contexts, such imagery may not carry the same visceral weight as it does in France, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and other countries scarred directly by his legacy.

 

However, the world has grown small. Social media has shrunk it further still. What might once have been an isolated local misstep - selling a Hitler-themed T-shirt, for instance - now has global reach and, with it, the potential to cause Thailand embarrassment on the world stage.

 

The boundary between decency and indecency often shifts within the fog of subjectivity. Yet, there are cases where certain imagery strays so far beyond that line that it may be argued it is simply never acceptable.

 

 

 

 

[johng]

14 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

In 2011, students in Chiang Mai held a Nazi-themed sports day parade (yes, really).

 

And remember this  caused a big upset,

poster on the huge billboard on the Sukhumvit road coming into Pattaya 

for a wax  work museum exhibition.

 

The writing says "Hitler is still not dead"

 

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

No, it illustrates that freedom of expression is not freedom if limited to what the current crop in charge deem acceptable.

 

“I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

 

The above would go great on a T-shirt worn by folks burning down T-shirt shops.

 

I agree....     freedom of expression and freedom of speech is one of the most important facets of modern civilisation - Yet, do we not individually hold a responsibility towards the values of freedom of expression and freedom of speech ?.....    and part of that responsibility is surely not to be deliberately offensive. 

 

In this case, the shop maybe naively ignorant of the symbolism of such imagery, though, more realistically, I doubt the owner cares - and therein lies the discussion and debate.

[Harrisfan]

[RUSirius]

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Perhaps they believe those days are behind them - yet the very fact that this debate continues suggests otherwise.

 

Your argument on morality feels somewhat shallow, as it hinges on a cross-species principle. By the same logic, one could justify humans eating steak, chicken, or any other animal product. The foundation of the argument seems to miss the crux of the issue.

 

That said, I do agree with your point regarding those who treat their sense of decency or morality as universal truths. They are not.

Concepts of decency and morality exist on a spectrum, shaped by location, nationality, culture - even by time itself.

 

Much of the tension lies in this grey area, yet it is important to recognise that extremes do exist. There are actions and symbols that are, by most reasonable standards, unequivocally indecent.

 

Consider, for example, the symbol of Hitler. In Thailand, due to differing historical and cultural contexts, such imagery may not carry the same visceral weight as it does in France, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and other countries scarred directly by his legacy.

 

However, the world has grown small. Social media has shrunk it further still. What might once have been an isolated local misstep - selling a Hitler-themed T-shirt, for instance - now has global reach and, with it, the potential to cause Thailand embarrassment on the world stage.

 

The boundary between decency and indecency often shifts within the fog of subjectivity. Yet, there are cases where certain imagery strays so far beyond that line that it may be argued it is simply never acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

One of the great things I love about Thailand is not having to listen to this rubbish in the media or from any friends of friends.

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, RUSirius said:

 

Nonsense.

 

Thailand simply hasn't been polluted by the same mold and mildew that has enveloped the west. It's not important because it's truly not important

 

I could equally go back to an extreme example I used earlier... 

 

23 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Consider this as a simple parallel: Would it be acceptable for her to sell a T-shirt depicting a deceased loved one of yours, accompanied by offensive or mocking words? Of course not.

 

Its not important to everyone else...  but, anyone with decency knows this would be offensive. 

 

The lines between basic decency and 'woke' (same mold and mildew that has developed in the west) are being blurred - but it shouldn't.

 

Basic decency has never changed - our tolerance for the lack of it seems to be being eroded, thats all. 

 

Are we becoming more tolerant, or just less considerate ?

 

 

[RUSirius]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I could equally go back to an extreme example I used earlier... 

 

 

Its not important to everyone else...  but, anyone with decency knows this would be offensive. 

 

The lines between basic decency and 'woke' (same mold and mildew that has developed in the west) are being blurred - but it shouldn't.

 

Basic decency has never changed - our tolerance for the lack of it seems to be being eroded, thats all. 

 

Are we becoming more tolerant, or just less considerate ?

 

 

You're way, way off base. The Thai people know little or nothing about WW2 and even less about the drama, propaganda that is constantly drummed up regarding Germany over a war decades over and a man born 100 years ago.

 

Thai people basically just know Germans as good folks, coming to Thailand for decades, spend money.

 

It's people like you that sully that.

 

Decency would be you letting it go, but I know you can't do that because it appears to be ingrained. Mental illness.

 

Stop shaming Thai people. They don't care about your mental illness and hysteria,  petty issues. Get over yourself

[richard_smith237]

Just now, RUSirius said:

One of the great things I love about Thailand is not having to listen to this rubbish in the media or from any friends of friends.

 

I agree - but don't you think it's more of a sliding spectrum? Somewhere along that spectrum lies a healthy and reasonable balance of decency.

 

Many argue that the West has gone too far in certain respects, and to be honest, I find myself agreeing with many of those arguments.

 

In this particular case, while I’m not personally offended - I think only a fool would willingly buy such a T-shirt - I do understand why others may take offence at the symbolism involved.

Equally, I can fully appreciate how Thais, and indeed people from other cultures, might be offended by the careless popularisation of symbols that they find culturally offensive.

 

The key point here is that this is not just about Westerners being offended in Thailand. It’s part of a much broader conversation about basic decency - as I mentioned earlier.

 

"The boundary between decency and indecency often shifts within the fog of subjectivity. Yet, there are cases where certain imagery strays so far beyond that line that it may be argued it is simply never acceptable"

 

[KannikaP]

1 hour ago, RayWright said:

Also privately educated members of the British Royal Family. 

ONE of them, ONCE!

[RUSirius]

Decency is highly subjective. A shirt depicting Putin is hardly indecent... even Hitler. The Putin shirt may even be worn out of a sense of pride. Hitler is just worn to be funny or shock.

 

It's simply not important here. I know it causes hemorrhage in some cultural religious types, oh well. Just kinda irrelevant here and I'm personally elated over it

 

If you don't like them, don't buy them. Easy

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, RUSirius said:

You're way, way off base. The Thai people know little or nothing about WW2 and even less about the drama that is constantly drummed up regarding Germany over a war decades over and a man born 100 years ago.

 

Thai people basically just know Germans as good folks, coming to Thailand for decades, spend money.

 

It's people like you that sully that.

 

Decency would be you letting it go, but I know you can't do that because it appears to be ingrained. Mental illness.

 

Stop shaming Thai people. They don't care about your mental illness and hysteria,  petty issues. Get over yourself

 

I don't personally care what people choose to wear - but I fully understand that others might.

 

However, if you wish to introduce the subject of mental illness into this discussion, then it seems you are more interested in scoring points through baseless accusations than actually engaging with the substance of the debate.

 

Moreover, you’ve failed to grasp the fundamental premise of my argument. Instead, you have once again resorted to deflection by accusing me of shaming Thai people, which was never the point.

 

This, frankly, only serves to highlight that you are not intellectually equipped for this discussion and would rather take potshots than engage seriously. I could just as easily point out the flaws in your comprehension of the points I have raised - but I won’t. In the spirit of meaningful discussion, I’ll simply encourage you to read my points again and make a genuine effort to understand them.

 

At its core, this is a conversation about freedom of speech, and more importantly, the necessity of basic decency for that freedom to flourish.

 

My argument stems from that of promoting basic decency on a general level where as yours is from justifying the popularisation of Hitler Imagery specifically within thailand.

 

I wish to make a broader point: this is not just about Westerners being offended in Thailand. It’s part of a much broader conversation about basic decency that crosses cultures and boundaries. 

[spidermike007]

I hope they see a massive increase in sales due to this publicity, people have the right to express themselves however they want if other people choose to be victims and be offended that's on them. These people are likely overly sensitive Russians, or loyal Trump devotees, who object to the great leader being characterized in an ugly fashion. Well the fact of the matter is he's a very ugly man who continues to perpetrate genocide and who seems to make a sport out of killing women, children and political adversaries. So he deserves whatever kind of shame and humiliation the world can heap upon his ugly mug. 

[KannikaP]

5 minutes ago, RUSirius said:

Thai people basically just know Germans as good folks, coming to Thailand for decades, spend money.

They wouldn't be allowed to wear Swastika or Hitler T-shirts in their own, or other European countries.

 

1 minute ago, RUSirius said:

Decency is highly subjective. A shirt depicting Putin is hardly indecent... even Hitler. The Putin shirt may even be worn out of a sense of pride. Hitler is just worn to be funny or shock.

 

It's simply not important here. I know it causes hemorrhage in some cultural religious types, oh well. Just kinda irrelevant here and I'm personally elated over it

 

If you don't like them, don't buy them. Easy

But to see one being sold or worn, saying Hitler was God, or Jesus is a puff, or Mohammed was a paedo could be upsetting for some.

[NoDisplayName]

23 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I agree....     freedom of expression and freedom of speech is one of the most important facets of modern civilisation - Yet, do we not individually hold a responsibility towards the values of freedom of expression and freedom of speech ?.....    and part of that responsibility is surely not to be deliberately offensive. 

 

In this case, the shop maybe naively ignorant of the symbolism of such imagery, though, more realistically, I doubt the owner cares - and therein lies the discussion and debate.

 

The responsibility is on all of us to understand that some people have different ideas as to what is acceptable speech.  It's all valid, regardless how despicable (to us personally), until it moves to incite violence.

 

We don't get to all set our own moral code and punish others accordingly.  If I don't like a certain symbol, I can boycott the shop that sells it, I can refuse to allow those products in my establishment, but I can't attack persons wearing a symbol I dislike.

 

I wonder how many Americans complaining about Hitler T-shirts are aware the USA has a nazi party that runs candidates in presidential elections when they can manage to secure enough signatures to get on state ballots.

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, RUSirius said:

Decency is highly subjective. A shirt depicting Putin is hardly indecent... even Hitler. The Putin shirt may even be worn out of a sense of pride. Hitler is just worn to be funny or shock.

 

Valid points - nevertheless both are provocative, and when worn by some (i.e forum members who suggest they will go out and buy such shirts) would be deliberately provocative. 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, RUSirius said:

It's simply not important here. I know it causes hemorrhage in some cultural religious types, oh well.

 

Again, valid, yet it continues to highlight a degree of insensitivity when anyone wishes to wear such items - even to the point of being deliberately provocative.

 

Those wearing such items or displaying such symbolism can only be dismissed as simple minded idiots. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, RUSirius said:

Just kinda irrelevant here and I'm personally elated over it

 

Being elated over someone wearing a hitler T-shirt in Thailand would tend to show a significantly juvinile mindset.

 

 

3 minutes ago, RUSirius said:

If you don't like them, don't buy them. Easy

 

Indeed...  If there wasn't a market for them, they wouldn't print such T-shirts.

 

Fortunately, we don't see many, because the vast majority of people are not ignorant and culturally insensitive fools. 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

The responsibility is on all of us to understand that some people have different ideas as to what is acceptable speech.  It's all valid, regardless how despicable (to us personally), until it moves to incite violence.

 

We don't get to all set our own moral code and punish others accordingly.  If I don't like a certain symbol, I can boycott the shop that sells it, I can refuse to allow those products in my establishment, but I can't attack persons wearing a symbol I dislike.

 

I wonder how many Americans complaining about Hitler T-shirts are aware the USA has a nazi party that runs candidates in presidential elections when they can manage to secure enough signatures to get on state ballots.

 

Valid points, I completely agree...

 

If we were to see a T-shirt that says "Moh is a Pedo"  - I think it perfectly normal for anyone to understand that this is offensive and its down the personal responsibility of both the printer (designer) and shop owner to avoid such deliberately controversial indecency. 

[NoDisplayName]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Valid points - nevertheless both are provocative, and when worn by some (i.e forum members who suggest they will go out and buy such shirts) would be deliberately provocative. 

 

Irrelevant.  Provocative speech is still protected speech.  Heck, if speech wasn't provocative or distasteful, it wouldn't need protection.

[RUSirius]

4 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

They wouldn't be allowed to wear Swastika or Hitler T-shirts in their own, or other European countries.

 

But to see one being sold or worn, saying Hitler was God, or Jesus is a puff, or Mohammed was a paedo could be upsetting for some.

 

But it's Thailand. What happens in home countries is irrelevant.

 

Do you live your life by what might be potentially offensive to some? Seems these days everyone is offended by everything. That's why I love being here.