<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: The case of the unintentionally fat-phobic $168 sweatshirt	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://sorrywatch.com/5801/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://sorrywatch.com/5801/</link>
	<description>Analyzing apologies in the news, media, history and literature. We condemn the bad and exalt the good.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2023 07:02:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Phil		</title>
		<link>https://sorrywatch.com/5801/#comment-218338</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Phil]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2023 07:02:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sorrywatch.com/?p=5801#comment-218338</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[It seems like their initial intent was good, but before they started the planning of their campaign, they must have taken some drugs.  Lots and lots of really bad drugs.

I remember an Indiegogo campaign where women were displayed holding large posters that quoted the awful words their rapists had said to them.  That one worked because the context was made clear, and it involved photos on a website, NOT sweatshirts on random people!  As a guy, if I tried to read the small print at the bottom of those sweatshirts (you know, the part that was supposed to offer context?), I&#039;d be accused at the very least of inappropriate staring.

Jimmy Kimmel&#039;s segment, &quot;Celebrity Mean Tweets&quot; is a much better way of illustrating how people are mean to celebrities, but I believe the overall intent of this campaign was to call out cyberbullying in general, not just cyberbullying of celebrities.  It&#039;s insecure adolescents that are most harmed by cyberbullying.  Maybe these companies should come out with AFFORDABLE sweatshirts in ALL SIZES that have positive statements on them.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems like their initial intent was good, but before they started the planning of their campaign, they must have taken some drugs.  Lots and lots of really bad drugs.</p>
<p>I remember an Indiegogo campaign where women were displayed holding large posters that quoted the awful words their rapists had said to them.  That one worked because the context was made clear, and it involved photos on a website, NOT sweatshirts on random people!  As a guy, if I tried to read the small print at the bottom of those sweatshirts (you know, the part that was supposed to offer context?), I&#8217;d be accused at the very least of inappropriate staring.</p>
<p>Jimmy Kimmel&#8217;s segment, &#8220;Celebrity Mean Tweets&#8221; is a much better way of illustrating how people are mean to celebrities, but I believe the overall intent of this campaign was to call out cyberbullying in general, not just cyberbullying of celebrities.  It&#8217;s insecure adolescents that are most harmed by cyberbullying.  Maybe these companies should come out with AFFORDABLE sweatshirts in ALL SIZES that have positive statements on them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Donkey Option		</title>
		<link>https://sorrywatch.com/5801/#comment-214871</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Donkey Option]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2018 00:51:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sorrywatch.com/?p=5801#comment-214871</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Having these quotes only available for straight size women means that the only women who could wear them would be skinny.  And would spend a lot of money so they could go out in public with this written on a sweatshirt.  And then, since it would be devoid of context and 99.9% of people wouldn&#039;t know that it was a charity thing would just assume that this clueless asshole had bought a horrible, mean sweatshirt to wear out in public and shame heavier women.  And EVEN IF it was available in larger sizes, it would still be a woman going around in public with a sweatshirt that said mean things about fat people.  How was this supposed to work?  Were people supposed to know the context?  Because no one would know.  This is not a quote that can be re-purposed.  This is not a thing heavier women can claim for strength.  It&#039;s just mean and cruel and NO ONE WILL GET IT!  This is a stupid idea and they should all apologize for being idiots who don&#039;t understand how reclaiming the narrative works and how charity works and how people work and how society works.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having these quotes only available for straight size women means that the only women who could wear them would be skinny.  And would spend a lot of money so they could go out in public with this written on a sweatshirt.  And then, since it would be devoid of context and 99.9% of people wouldn&#8217;t know that it was a charity thing would just assume that this clueless asshole had bought a horrible, mean sweatshirt to wear out in public and shame heavier women.  And EVEN IF it was available in larger sizes, it would still be a woman going around in public with a sweatshirt that said mean things about fat people.  How was this supposed to work?  Were people supposed to know the context?  Because no one would know.  This is not a quote that can be re-purposed.  This is not a thing heavier women can claim for strength.  It&#8217;s just mean and cruel and NO ONE WILL GET IT!  This is a stupid idea and they should all apologize for being idiots who don&#8217;t understand how reclaiming the narrative works and how charity works and how people work and how society works.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
