You know, it's all well and good to have someone anonymously post a "parody" of the YWCA logo under the name Bush Cheney, but I would seriously like to know what prompted someone to actually bother to repeat the offense. This Word It, which only just today popped up on my screen, is the most hateful thing I've ever seen on this site, and I'm rarely moved to bother to point out such things out anymore. However. Don, really, what the fuck? Have a little wit. Have a little, just the barest fucking minimum, originality (unless of course, you posted the original as Bush Cheney). Take a moment to consider that nothing, absolutely nothing, of worth or interest or humor or satire is expressed in this little exercise.

Back to my Frank Briggs & The Hard Case eight tracks

It was actually I who posted the Bush Cheney YWCA parody, and it was meant as satire, not an endorsement of those values. I'm unlcear from your post as to why this has upset you so.

Can you clarify?

I object to a number of things. Mainly, I don't see the point or value of repeating the thing that had appeared in the YWCA discussion. This just puts it into circulation further. It's all the more lame given the fact that it wasn't even his idea originally.

But more to the point, in what sense is this satire? Clearly that's the intention. I didn't take it as someone actually endorsing misogyny and racism. Nor should we bother discussing whether some people will read it literally. The mere fact that one can read it literally as a pretty stark piece of hate speech makes it:

a) unfunny

b) unenlightening

c) unworthy of sharing with the general public

Satire (and if experience is any indication, this thread will derail into a semantic discussion of satire, which will be just freaking peachy) should have a message, or express through irony one's values. If the message of your so-called satire is to endorse the opposite meaning of what the words literally say, then what's your message? Isn't it simply identical to the original YWCA tagline? What point has any of this served, except to put a hateful group of words out into the world? Flipping the words doesn't express any value so much as the idea that it's worth your time to flip some words around. And that you didn't bother considering how lame that is.

Anyway, that's all. Someone will come to your defense in the name of free expression and someone else will chime in with how they'd rather say what they want than pussyfoot around some PC bullshit, as if that had anything to do with it. And eventually some corporation will roll out a crappy new logo and all will be back to normal, except everything will have tended just slightly less, rather than more.

With all due respect, Sam, you're being ridiculous.

It is what it is, and that is satire. It is folly. Wit. Irony. It is derisive. But the derision is not aimed at women, nor at people of other races (not that you know what mine is), it is clearly aimed at our dear GOP, with the insuation being that they as a group do represent these twisted values. If it is hateful and unfair towards anyone, it is Repubicans. But I can live with that.

Do you really think that any reasonable person would see this as a literal endorsement of these hateful values? I think not, and I'm surprised that you do. Are you really concerned that such heavy handed satire as this will be lost on anyone? If so we should immediately strike all metaphors and similes, symbolism and icons from our work and simply state what we are trying to say in the plainest of terms so as not to risk confusing the great ignorant masses that shuffle unimaginatively about the earth.

Oh, and...

It is quite possible for two people to come up with the same idea simultaneously and independently, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that Don’s idea isn’t original simply because it was posted after mine. You presuppose that he even saw the image in the original post (which he didn’t). It’s a pretty obvious idea, in my opinion, and I’m sure we weren’t the only ones to think of it.

Hi Sam,

Thanks for noticing. Regrettably, I had not seen the Bush Cheney version, but certainly the statement of "eliminating racism" is a bold claim. I wish YWCA would have gone public with their solution years ago. As a society we would all benefit tremendously.

This is a design forum right? The message was not intended for the greater public. The fact that the idea can be so easily subverted without a major impact on the "logo," for lack of a better descriptive, speaks to it's lack of distinction. When placed next to the MoMA logo in the earlier post I actually missed it entirely and had to go back for a second read.

The point to the Word It was just that, to prove a point. To play Devil's Advocate for moment. This is a fairly generic solution and the obviously offensive counter message was just begging to be underlined. Parody deserved. Twice even.

It will be interesting to see how enduring this solution will become. Change is almost always slow at large institutions and corporations. In the eagerness to modernize, many decision makers (designers and clients) seem to become overly enthusiastic by sudden momentum and opportunity to shake things up, losing sight of the equity and heritage that has already been established. It is also okay to evolve at a structured pace. Someone sold this to them as "the next great thing" and they bought in. Bold moves can also have bold consequences... they should be thought through including best and worse case scenarios. (UPS, YWCA, Prudential a financial institution that in the 80's gave up the equity of "The Rock"?! what the...?).

Let's wait and see who's next. But, let's not be the ones to steer them down a shaky path.

Do you really think that any reasonable person would see this as a literal endorsement of these hateful values? I think not, and I'm surprised that you do.

Chris, I did not. As I said: "I didn't take it as someone actually endorsing misogyny and racism. Nor should we bother discussing whether some people will read it literally. "

Neither your nor Don's thing have the GOP in the logo itself. So the image looks like a parody only of the YWCA. And furthermore, taking the metaphor point immediately to the extreme

OH GOD WHY DO I GET INVOLVED IN THIS. Never mind.

>Do you really think that any reasonable person would see this as a literal endorsement of these hateful values? I think not, and I'm surprised that you do.

Actually, someone looking at this quickly very well might. As may "unreasonable" people, to borrow your phrase, whomever they may be. I'm with Sam on this one. While I do believe in free speech and I am loathe to tip-toeing around PC bullshit, I find that kind of humor senseless and useless and a bit offensive. If it were something you truly believed I would actually have more tolerance for it, as it would've been a sincere belief that just didn't jive with my beliefs. But to use the idea of "eliminating women" and "empowering racism" and position it as an attempt at humor or just joking around is just, well, imho, not very funny.

But that's just me.

For additional consideration, I submitted the Word It with the option of being placed under Ooops! or Brand(ing). Looks like it made it to the right place.

Now a GOP parody would always be interesting. Except that most of these groups are self-parodying by default.

In my opinion, this is getting blown out of proportion more than it should. We have had Word Its that are more offensive, more unfunny, more unenlightening and more unworthy of sharing with the general public than Don's.

I'm not siding with anyone, just sayin' that I've seen worse.

No more comments your Honor.

P.S. For the record, I would never advocate either of these issues. Cover my new baby girl's ears and eyes that the message be misinterpreted away from this forum...

I simply aspire to continually do better, and more meaningful work. In my opinion a powerful opportunity was missed, and lost in this new solution. That's all. Maybe they'll prove me wrong with the ensuing campaign.

Thanks Armin, it's nice to know I'm not the worst to date, I think.

In my opinion, this is getting blown out of proportion more than it should.

Armin, exactly how much should it get blown out of proportion, then? Hee hee hic.

Back to my copy of Blogging Into Oblivion

Exactly how much I don't know, but less than this.

Actually, my parody does reference the object of the parody within the image. RNC.ORG pretty much places the Republicans squarely within the logo's target.

As for being offensive, I still don't understand how you are seeing it as such (other that in the way it is obviously intened to be). The very concept of racism is an offensive one, as is a society in which women still need to be uniquely empowered. In the case of the YWCA logo, the values expressed are those of equality, presumably in the face of a condition in which it is not the norm. The struggle of equality is just that, a struggle, and to struggle one must have an opponent. In the case of the parody, that opponent is identified using the same language as is used in the original. Hence, satire.

I get it, which adds the extra wit to your solution that mine is lacking ;)...

In the Word It option, note the inverted lowercase "y" which evokes the shape of a small white hood, albeit in further bad taste, representing the wca - a fictitious group for whom the unfortunate slogan could apply. This becomes buried and almost overlooked by the overpowering message, which is powerful in Helvetica Black, but could in fact be any message. The nutritional information on my lunch seems of equal importance.

My mistake, Chris. I was looking at Don's when I wrote that. Point taken.

CCHS, Hollis, Sam and DM inna haus.

Holla. wuttup wuttup.

seriously, you guys are makin my head hurt.

has anybody seen this logo?

i hear they want to change it to reflect

how Debbie feels about the GOP.

couldnt till for August's RNC poly-word it...

eh, i can never learn....

Word It Socks,

Now a GOP parody would always be interesting. Except that most of these groups are self-parodying by default. 'Nuff said.

I'm sure you could submit this under re-brand(ing) also, so there would be another Word It up for discussion. Still waiting to hear if Sam likes it or not...

Back to my Comedy for Dummies book on CD, chapter 2.