Eastman (ELMC) Throws Their Hat in the J-100 Ring

[Capesofwrath]

Eastman is undeniably entitled to believe whatever he wants. Likewise, I am entitled to be offended by his beliefs, and to boycott his products based on his beliefs.

You’re entitled to be offended by whatever you want to be offended by, and it is a choice. But not to expect others to necessarily be offended as well. People seem to get offended all the time nowadays at all sorts of things, and you see them getting up online petitions to ban this and that because of it. They seem to feel somehow that they should not have to see things they don’t like, or read opinions which they disapprove of, and they get offended. Instead of just accepting these things as another point of view. I used to get offended, or rather angry at all sorts of things in the world at one time, and probably different things than you do. But I just tend to let things flow past me these days.

 

[ButteMT61]

I hate the word "offended", or rather, how it's abused today like other words I won't bring up.
I'm not offended, I just don't care to see such things by someone I may or may not spend money on. Fortunately, it's not hard for me as I never found his offerings appealing.

 

[Superfluous]

You’re entitled to be offended by whatever you want to be offended by, and it is a choice. But not to expect others to necessarily be offended as well.

Agreed. I have not asked others to follow suit. To the contrary, I expressly stated that "others must decide for themselves."

They seem to feel somehow that they should not have to see things they don’t like, or read opinions which they disapprove of, and they get offended. Instead of just accepting these things as another point of view.

I fully endorse Gary Eastman's right to speak his mind. This is not about whether Eastman has the right to espouse his particular opinions. The real issue is how we, as consumers, will respond to Eastman's exercise of free speech in connection with the marketing and sale of his products. Some will ignore it and continue to patronize Eastman Leather, as is there right. Others will elect to discontinue buying Eastman products, as is there right.

Ps: Gotta run . . . be back later.

 

[ButteMT61]

FWIW, I appreciate that the Hosts here are letting us chat on this. And I appreciate that nobody has been a tool and ruined it so far

 

[Sloan1874]

I was surprised at how long the photo remained on the IG site. In fact, it only disappeared early afternoon.

 

[mr_lits]

I hate the word "offended", or rather, how it's abused today like other words I won't bring up.

Have to completely agree. "Offense" is a trap word that has become something we are expected to bow to. It is up to the individual to control their emotional response. Offense is something one takes, it is not given. All that said if you do not like someones stance on an issue don't patron them.

 

[bn1966]

I just like their jackets

 

[Edward]

Absolutely. When that opinion becomes integral to a marketing message is when consumer tends to take note, and the company then has to live with the consequences.

That is, of course, the balance of freedom of expression in any legal code in which it appears: one has the freedom to express one's opinion, and others to make their replies.

Right to express an opinion also comes with the right of others to point and laugh at that opinion.

Quite!

I'm also concerned that we can't politely discuss this here. If a maker - well known here - decides to post up that stuff on a company page, then it should be fair game to discuss here (I know, not my joint). I'm hoping that we can, as this is the most fun we've had since BK went off to Area 51.

Honestly, I would be willing to bet that more folks in this realm have this sort of mindset. I see it in the reenacting space as well. It's actually a very political arena, and this does not surprise me at all, except that it's really really poor business practice.

It is bordering on an area which enters verboten subject matter on here. I see a reasonable discussion happening here over, by and large, marketing policy (or, indeed, what happened at Pearl Harbour) but the problem would be where it delves into contemporary politics, not least involving the military. Especially so when one bears in mind that there is both a large US presence and a large European presence on this site, and political culture often varies widely between the two. It would be dangerous to assume that everyone 'thinks alike' becasue we're all into jackets, or vintgae, or w.h.y.. Of course, variety is the spice of life, but some spices are best left on the shelf in a nice place like this.

As a rule, I do tend to find it a risky business move to nail particular politics to the business (as distinct from the individual employee). It has worked both ways with me before - some companies I have patronised because of a, broadly speaking, political outlook - others I've chosen not to buy from over it. C'est la vie.

Wow, that I didn't know in light of the licensed use by RMC of the name. That surely dilutes the value of that license, which Superfluous and I already questioned as being unnecessary.

Certainly the lack of exclusivity makes it debatable what it's worth; can't comment on the validity of the current Buco mark as I don't know the details of its purported ownership. From an academic viewpoint, though, its interesting that there are so many different manufacturers licensing the mark to then sell directly to the public, as distinct from simply manufacturing, under licence, to the Buco mark owner who will then retail. The original concept of a TM was to act as a demarcation of the origin of particular goods, which clearly doesn't work qjuite like that here. Would be fascinating to look at a mark like this in context of the development of TM law.

 

[Sloan1874]

I just like their jackets

You would think that would be enough for one maker, without the need to make silly missteps like this one. I have a rule with twitter: if I have to think twice before posting what I've typed, then it's probably not worth doing. Social media is a minefield, and it never fails to surprise me how the littlest thing can take off, for better or worse, and in some circumstances cost people their jobs and their livelihoods.

 

[GregO]

The fact that Eastman is a lune won't stop me from buying his jackets (just spoke to Charlie at HPA on Thursday about a Californian). If I boycotted everyone that offended me, I would never get to see another movie again, because just about all of Hollywood are raving mad crackpots who long ago stopped living in the real world.

If he wants to mix is politics/conspiracy theories with his marketing, that's his choice. Seems like a bad choice to me, but I really could care less, so long as the stitching on his jackets is straight and the leather exhibits some nice grain!

 

[Otter]

Next jacket, The Pearl Harbour Conspiracy Jacket. Lightly aged in a vat of isolationist conspiracy.

 

[bn1966]

The fact that Eastman is a lune won't stop me from buying his jackets (just spoke to Charlie at HPA on Thursday about a Californian). If I boycotted everyone that offended me, I would never get to see another movie again, because just about all of Hollywood are raving mad crackpots who long ago stopped living in the real world.

If he wants to mix is politics/conspiracy theories with his marketing, that's his choice. Seems like a bad choice to me, but I really could care less, so long as the stitching on his jackets is straight and the leather exhibits some nice grain!

Here Here

 

[Monitor]

Strange. I find all post 2000 movies to be sickeningly politically correct, wimpy, spineless and tame.

 

[GregO]

Strange. I find all post 2000 movies to be sickeningly politically correct, wimpy, spineless and tame.

I was actually talking about the actors, actresses, directors, etc., not the films themselves. But I do agree with you -- far too few movies really challenge us and our preconceived notions these days.

 

[Smithy]

I'm like BN, I like their jackets. I have an Irvin and talked to Gary on the phone a few times on the phone when I was nutting out sizing. He was helpful and really knew his onions in terms of making sure the size I picked was right.

Am I offended that he's spouted some out-there conspiracy theory bunkum? Not really. I'm not easily offended so I don't really give a fig. There's loads of people who think all sorts of (what I reckon) is completely silly crap - the CIA bumped off JFK, the moon landings didn't happen, etc, etc.

If he'd come out and raved on with a lot of racist or other (what I personally consider offensive) nonsense, then I would be offended.

This comes down to what other members have pointed out, namely it's what you personally find offensive and ultimately how you choose to react to that.

 

[nick123]

JFK was speaking about communism, not some secret society.

Eh you're right. My "conspiracy" red button was pushed and I pulled up some nonsense from google images. I'm being a bad forum member lately.

 

[pawineguy]

Eh you're right. My "conspiracy" red button was pushed and I pulled up some nonsense from google images. I'm being a bad forum member lately.

I love you man! It's all good.

 

[Bunyip]

I was surprised at how long the photo remained on the IG site. In fact, it only disappeared early afternoon.

I know! I checked a few times myself. I was quite surprised it stayed up as long as it did. I wonder if they recieved much feedback?

 

[ProteinNerd]

Strange. I find all post 2000 movies to be sickeningly politically correct, wimpy, spineless and tame.

You haven't seen Deadpool yet, have you?

 

[Monitor]

Nope. Girlfriend wants to see it but I'm still finding excuses not to. This weekend I had a headache.