Anne Hathaway apologies for depiction of limb difference

The_Brood

You cannot possibly make an argument that if a villain displays some physical characteristics that may match the physical characteristics of particular groups of people, be that skin color, disability etc - then the the movie is trying to suggest that all people of said group are villainous.

If you in any way shape or form believe that, you are a brainwashed idiot.

AndrewJRenko

https://twitter.com/stigmabase/status/1324396947021553665?s=19

Good explanation from Alex,

tscul32

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

https://twitter.com/stigmabase/status/1324396947021553665?s=19

Good explanation from Alex,

The point that's missing is that she doesn't have "missing" fingers cos she's not human. She has 3 fingers cos that's what witches have and she's a witch. That's like saying a dog has 2 "extra" legs. You can't expect different species to look the same.

cdeb

Foweva Awone wrote: »

I don't know ... I really hate political correctness for the sake of political correctness.

However .... I don't have any limb deformities. If the community of people who do have such deformities say that they take offence at this portrayal, shouldn't we accept and respect that?

I mean, say for example the entire cast of witches were black in this movie, and we were told we can identify witches by the dark colour of the skin. The black community (and most of the rest of us) would be up in arms over it.

Just because the community of people with limb deformities is much much smaller, should we respect their feelings any less? I don't think so.

I find your post offensive, and as a member of the community of people with an ounce of common sense, shouldn't you accept and respect that and issue a grovelling apology to me?

For starters, there is no such thing as "the community of people who have such deformities". (Or "the community of people with an ounce of common sense" of course; I was using irony to make a point, which will probably be lost on you). There are people with ectrodactyly, but to suggest that they form a cogent community of themselves is to go down the route of splitting society into any number of infinitesimal "communities" which are not communities at all.

Secondly, clearly no offence was meant in a fictional film. And I don't see anyone affected by ectrodactyly complaining. In fact, that seems to be a common trend here - these things almost always involve people taking offence on behalf of other anonymous people. That completely skews the number of people who are actually bothered about the thing. (They're mostly white females too I think - though they probably wouldn't like to be called pale, stale and female for some reason)

What is offensive is how (American) society seems to be going further down the North Korean route of badgering people into holding certain opinions acceptable to society. There's a bit in This is Paradise by Hyok Kang, a North Korean escapee, about the use of self-criticism in North Korean schools -

The pupils targeted by the denunciations had to rise to their feet, lower their heads, their chins pressing to their chests, and admit their mistakes, because you don't challenge your incrimination. So my drawing of Kim Il-Sung brought me the admonition of 24 of my classmates. It was absolute hell, because each time it happened, I had to stand up in class once again and tell the whole class how remorseful I was.

This is how North Korea keeps its populace towing the party line from a very early age. And as I say, it's eerily similar to what's happening in America right now with all these bull**** apologies. If that's not a reason to stop being offended by this crap and giving it air to breathe, then the place is in trouble...

Gervais08

AllForIt wrote: »

Only actors with limb differences should play characters with limb differences.

I’m surprised you didn’t say only members of the Wiccan faith should play witches - and they should all be positive portrayals.

AndrewJRenko

tscul32 wrote: »

The point that's missing is that she doesn't have "missing" fingers cos she's not human. She has 3 fingers cos that's what witches have and she's a witch. That's like saying a dog has 2 "extra" legs. You can't expect different species to look the same.

Dogs are real. Witches aren't real.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Dogs are real. Witches aren't real.

Exactly. So why the **** does it matter if they have elongated fingers or odd shaped hands?

StupidLikeAFox

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Exactly. So why the **** does it matter if they have elongated fingers or odd shaped hands?

AmyJane have you a personal perspective a few posts up - I would give more weight to her perspective than yours

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly. So why the **** does it matter if they have elongated fingers or odd shaped hands?

Um, witches and warlocks are actually real. You've got the Wicca belief, but there are a variety of groups out there with religious or social beliefs that they consider themselves to be witches, warlocks, shamans, etc. I know a Shaman healer in Kildare who considers himself to be part shaman and part warlock. He dabbles in witchcraft, but his true calling is Shamanism. (makes a decent living from it too)

So.. I wonder do we just abolish all forms of expression which might portray any possible group in a negative light or stereotype?

I have a friend who is a fireman. He's tall, very skinny, but still able to do his job extremely well... but the stereotype is vastly different from how he appears. So.. should he be offended by the stereotype....., or going further should only those who fit the stereotype be allowed to be firemen? (do we call them firepeople now?)

StupidLikeAFox

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

AmyJane have you a personal perspective a few posts up - I would give more weight to her perspective than yours

What way do you believe the fictional witches should have been portrayed? What way would you have shown them to ensure that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY could feel offended by it?

Does my perspective that fictional witches aren't representative of disabled people carry less weight because I am not comparing the two?

Gervais08

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What way do you believe the fictional witches should have been portrayed? What way would you have shown them to ensure that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY could feel offended by it?

Does my perspective that fictional witches aren't representative of disabled people carry less weight because I am not comparing the two?

Speaking of weight - can I retroactively take offence and get an apology from Mike Myers and his creation Fat Bastard ???

To be honest as a big girl I was more offended by Shallow Hal - my inner beauty is hotter than Gwyneth Paltrow ffs!!!!

Alex Brooker for one has to realize he was only hired as a comic DUE TO his disability - he’s as funny as an ingrown pubic hair.

AndrewJRenko

Gervais08 wrote: »

Alex Brooker for one has to realize he was only hired as a comic DUE TO his disability - he’s as funny as an ingrown pubic hair.

How many series of the Last Leg have we had now? Prime time Channel 4 and you reckon it's all done for charity?


That's clutching at straws.

whisky_galore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Um, witches and warlocks are actually real. You've got the Wicca belief, but there are a variety of groups out there with religious or social beliefs that they consider themselves to be witches, warlocks, shamans, etc. I know a Shaman healer in Kildare who considers himself to be part shaman and part warlock. He dabbles in witchcraft, but his true calling is Shamanism. (makes a decent living from it too)

I'm sure there are people who consider themselves to be astronauts, badgers or deep fat fryers who are not really any of these things but make a decent living from it from the deluded.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How many series of the Last Leg have we had now? Prime time Channel 4 and you reckon it's all done for charity?


That's clutching at straws.

That's not what was being alluded to.

Are you saying his disability has no bearing on why he got the gig?

Gervais08

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How many series of the Last Leg have we had now? Prime time Channel 4 and you reckon it's all done for charity?


That's clutching at straws.

Where did I say for “charity” ???

Box ticking, quotas - whatever you want to call it but charity implies some sort of altruism.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Um, witches and warlocks are actually real. You've got the Wicca belief, but there are a variety of groups out there with religious or social beliefs that they consider themselves to be witches, warlocks, shamans, etc. I know a Shaman healer in Kildare who considers himself to be part shaman and part warlock. He dabbles in witchcraft, but his true calling is Shamanism. (makes a decent living from it too)

Well, I'm sure there are many gobshites out there that think they're "witches" and that they are practising "witchcraft". But the reality is that neither are, technically, "real", because witchcraft doesn't exist.

There's fucking ejits that think they're vampires too.

Tandey

Really enjoyed that movie, especially the parts with the mad toes and fingers.

Tandey

AllForIt wrote: »

Only actors with limb differences should play characters with limb differences.

And only aliens should play aliens ffs.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, I'm sure there are many gobshites out there that think they're "witches" and that they are practising "witchcraft". But the reality is that neither are, technically, "real", because witchcraft doesn't exist.

There's fucking ejits that think they're vampires too.

haha.. technically, witchcraft does exist since the formulas and ritual exist, and are practiced. It's the same with any religion. And people call themselves witches, so witches exist. It doesn't matter that their rituals are useless, the belief is there. so technically it does exist, and has for most of human history.

In any case, it doesn't matter.

...Ghost...

I'm doing a video documentary about the fact that The Clangers from the moon were not actually real.



Trouble is, I don't want to be offending anyone and I need to find a real life clanger to interview and to be able to speak up for his/her race......please don't hate me for assuming genders. There is not enough space or time to fit them all in.

Yeah, the western world is officially more fúcked up than the east......and the east have bombs going off in their back yard :rolleyes:

Gervais08

...Ghost... wrote: »

I'm doing a video documentary about the fact that The Clangers from the moon were not actually real.



Trouble is, I don't want to be offending anyone and I need to find a real life clanger to interview and to be able to speak up for his/her race......please don't hate me for assuming genders. There is not enough space or time to fit them all in.

Yeah, the western world is officially more fúcked up than the east......and the east have bombs going off in their back yard :rolleyes:

Mr Spoon from Button Moon now identifies as a non-binary fork.

StupidLikeAFox

...Ghost... wrote: »

I'm doing a video documentary about the fact that The Clangers from the moon were not actually real.

Trouble is, I don't want to be offending anyone and I need to find a real life clanger to interview and to be able to speak up for his/her race......please don't hate me for assuming genders. There is not enough space or time to fit them all in.

Yeah, the western world is officially more fúcked up than the east......and the east have bombs going off in their back yard :rolleyes:

I don't know what kind of point your trying to make here.
You are inventing a fictional issue. I remember going down a YouTube rabbit hole around the time of the marriage equality referendum, and there were people the making the point that if we allowed two men to get married then it was inevitable that people would end up marrying there children or marrying goats - that is what you sound like. Not everything is a "slippery slope"

Gervais08

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I don't know what kind of point your trying to make here.
You are inventing a fictional issue. I remember going down a YouTube rabbit hole around the time of the marriage equality referendum, and there were people the making the point that if we allowed two men to get married then it was inevitable that people would end up marrying there children or marrying goats - that is what you sound like. Not everything is a "slippery slope"

For the love of God please stop using the gay community in spurious arguments like this.

My pink brothers were born gay, and want nothing more than the rights they deserve as equals.

They are not making up 100 bull**** identities and making people say black is white and the sky is green.

JustAThought

Gervais08 wrote: »

For the love of God please stop using the gay community in spurious arguments like this.

My pink brothers were born gay, and want nothing more than the rights they deserve as equals.

They are not making up 100 bull**** identities and making people say black is white and the sky is green.

Is that a bit like saying a man is a
woman and a woman is a
man if they want to be?!

StupidLikeAFox

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What way do you believe the fictional witches should have been portrayed? What way would you have shown them to ensure that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY could feel offended by it?

Does my perspective that fictional witches aren't representative of disabled people carry less weight because I am not comparing the two?

There are many ways could represented witches without making a disability a core attribute.

You are entitled to your perspective of course, but you are lucky enough hat you are not really affected by this day to day. The extent of your injury comes down to what, Anne Hathaway sayings two line apology? You don't have a family member getting bullied or called a witch or just generally feeling self conscious due to how their disability is portrayed - your advice to those people would be suck it up and get over it I guess?

Anyway as a final point, representation does matter. There aren't too many disabilities portrayed on TV and I don't think we need to go crowbar disabilities into every film "just because", but if they are portrayed then it should be done in a positive light, or just a normal light. They certainly shouldn't be highlighted as something negative for sure, and in this case it sounds like it was a completely unnecessary detail amyway

StupidLikeAFox

Gervais08 wrote: »

For the love of God please stop using the gay community in spurious arguments like this.

My pink brothers were born gay, and want nothing more than the rights they deserve as equals.

They are not making up 100 bull**** identities and making people say black is white and the sky is green.

Are you deliberately missing my point or did it just go over your head?

AndrewJRenko

Gervais08 wrote: »

Where did I say for “charity” ???

Box ticking, quotas - whatever you want to call it but charity implies some sort of altruism.

What's the quota for smug, white, male, middle-aged comedians?

Full update from Alex Brooker here;
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/entertainment-arts-54817164

StupidLikeAFox

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

There are many ways could represented witches without making a disability a core attribute.

You are entitled to your perspective of course, but you are lucky enough hat you are not really affected by this day to day. The extent of your injury comes down to what, Anne Hathaway sayings two line apology? You don't have a family member getting bullied or called a witch or just generally feeling self conscious due to how their disability is portrayed - your advice to those people would be suck it up and get over it I guess?

Anyway as a final point, representation does matter. There aren't too many disabilities portrayed on TV and I don't think we need to go crowbar disabilities into every film "just because", but if they are portrayed then it should be done in a positive light, or just a normal light. They certainly shouldn't be highlighted as something negative for sure, and in this case it sounds like it was a completely unnecessary detail amyway

Their disability was not portrayed. The fictitious witches happened to have hands that may look somewhat similar to people who have ectrodactyly .

Huge difference.

The extent of my injury? That is commonly used tactic to attempt to stifle conversation. I never claimed to be injured. My advice to people who are called nasty names? Yes, it would be suck it up. People will always be nasty to people who are "different" and quite frankly, it is naive to think that people with ectrodactyly will be called names because of the witches. If they weren't going to be called witches, it would be another equally insulting names.

You say that disabilities should be portrayed as positive. Maybe, I don't necessarily agree but this film wasn't portraying ectrodactyly so that is moot.

The witches are also bald. How come they haven't issued an apology to alopecia sufferers?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What's the quota for smug, white, male, middle-aged comedians?

Full update from Alex Brooker here;
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/entertainment-arts-54817164

Too many white guys for you Andrew? Probably would suit you better to consume media from non majority white countries so.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Too many white guys for you Andrew? Probably would suit you better to consume media from non majority white countries so.

Outside of the Last Leg, do you think that representation of people with disabilities, or black people, or Asian people, or women, or trans people is anything near representative their presence in this population?

AndrewJRenko

Meant To Say wrote: »

One the biggest shows of all time, Family Guy, has a handicapped central character, Joe Swanson.

The 1970s called for you, they want their offensive terminology back.

JimmyVik

Wrong thread

cdeb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The 1970s called for you, they want their offensive terminology back.

Joe Swanson has called himself handicapped in the shows btw. Nobody cares. I think you're trying to be offended on behalf of someone else again.

AndrewJRenko

Meant To Say wrote: »

Try and refute my point first

The point that a cartoon character in a US cartoon show is significant in terms of representation of people with disabilities in UK comedy?

AndrewJRenko

cdeb wrote: »

Joe Swanson has called himself handicapped in the shows btw. Nobody cares. I think you're trying to be offended on behalf of someone else again.

Joe isn't a real person, just ICYMI.

cdeb

Meant To Say wrote: »

And Joe is treated like joke, the same as every other character. But I suppose that's the wrong type of equality.

Yup. Equality is highlighting everyone's colour and making a big deal out of counting everyone's colour and categorising people as "black", "white", Asian", etc, in a work environment.

Oh no wait, that's actually racism.

My bad.

cdeb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Joe isn't a real person, just ICYMI.

Well duh.

My point is if a handicapped character refers to themselves as handicapped without any furore over the term for the last 20 years, you've no right to come along and take offence on their behalf over it.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Outside of the Last Leg, do you think that representation of people with disabilities, or black people, or Asian people, or women, or trans people is anything near representative their presence in this population?

Yes I do.

Please tell me how women and black or Asian people don't get their fair chances to be seen.

I swear, listening to some comments on here, you would swear that rather than living in one of the most progressive countries in the world, we were some sort of white supremacists patriarchy that holds women back.

Disabled people are rarely shown in a negative context but do feature on television and trans people are such a tiny percentage of the populations it would be massively overrepresenting them to shoehorn them in for the sake of inclusivity.

AndrewJRenko

cdeb wrote: »

Well duh.

My point is if a handicapped character refers to themselves as handicapped without any furore over the term for the last 20 years, you've no right to come along and take offence on their behalf over it.

You seem to be missing the point that he's not a real person - he is a cartoon character, and anything that he says is written by script writers - they are not the versions of people with disabilities.

I'm not taking offence on anyone's behalf. I'm pointing out that the disability sector in the USA has spent quite some time explaining how 'handicap' is not appropriate terminology;

https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/acc/acc02.htm
http://www.aucd.org/docs/add/sa_summits/Language%20Doc.pdf

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/69361/why-did-disabled-replace-handicapped-preferred-term
Or you can take the Irish government view;
http://nda.ie/Publications/Attitudes/Appropriate-Terms-to-Use-about-Disability/

Or the UK government view;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/inclusive-language-words-to-use-and-avoid-when-writing-about-disability

Take your pick.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I do.

Please tell me how women and black or Asian people don't get their fair chances to be seen.

I swear, listening to some comments on here, you would swear that rather than living in one of the most progressive countries in the world, we were some sort of white supremacists patriarchy that holds women back.

Disabled people are rarely shown in a negative context but do feature on television and trans people are such a tiny percentage of the populations it would be massively overrepresenting them to shoehorn them in for the sake of inclusivity.

From: https://www.scope.org.uk/media/disability-facts-figures/

There are 14.1 million disabled people in the UK.

8% of children are disabled
19% of working age adults are disabled
44% of pension age adults are disabled

Do you reckon that 19% of comedians that you see on TV are disabled?

It's not really that tiny, is it?

cdeb

And yet there's no uproar (including from handicapped people) about Swanson calling himself handicapped. I think that's significant as it indicates that all those links are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist anywhere near as much as some people think it does.

Handicapped and disabled both mean the exact same thing, and it's daft to say one is offensive and the other isn't.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

haha.. technically, witchcraft does exist since the formulas and ritual exist, and are practiced. It's the same with any religion. And people call themselves witches, so witches exist. It doesn't matter that their rituals are useless, the belief is there. so technically it does exist, and has for most of human history.

In any case, it doesn't matter.

I can cut my pizza box into strange little shapes and mutter an incantation to try and stop it raining, and call it a "craft".

It would make it any more real though.

Gervais08

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point that he's not a real person - he is a cartoon character, and anything that he says is written by script writers - they are not the versions of people with disabilities.

I'm not taking offence on anyone's behalf. I'm pointing out that the disability sector in the USA has spent quite some time explaining how 'handicap' is not appropriate terminology;

https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/acc/acc02.htm
http://www.aucd.org/docs/add/sa_summits/Language%20Doc.pdf

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/69361/why-did-disabled-replace-handicapped-preferred-term
Or you can take the Irish government view;
http://nda.ie/Publications/Attitudes/Appropriate-Terms-to-Use-about-Disability/

Or the UK government view;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/inclusive-language-words-to-use-and-avoid-when-writing-about-disability

Take your pick.

I have a bad hip. It limits my ability to do certain things.

It’s a handicap. What’s the issue ?

cdeb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you reckon that 19% of comedians that you see on TV are disabled?

Why should they be?

Who cares?

BTW - 19% of adults disabled? If you have a look around real life, you'll see that's either (a) not true or (b) has such a wide definition of "disabled" as to render it irrelevant.

Tony EH

Gervais08 wrote: »

Mr Spoon from Button Moon now identifies as a non-binary fork.

That would be a spork then?

Tony EH

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Joe isn't a real person, just ICYMI.

Neither is Anne Hathaway's witch.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

I can cut my pizza box into strange little shapes and mutter an incantation to try and stop it raining, and call it a "craft".

It would make it any more real though.

And the same could be said with regards to "communion" in Christianity. And yet, it's a religion with a sizable following. There's little difference between the rituals in religion and the rituals within witchcraft/Sorcery.

It's not about what is "real". You used the phrase technically earlier. Well, technically, they do exist.. being able to prove that what they believe in is true isn't required, otherwise we could dismiss all manner of beliefs (like the US fascination in the existence of Angels)

Gervais08

Tony EH wrote: »

That would be a spork then?

Did you just assume his cutlery ??? 😉

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

From: https://www.scope.org.uk/media/disability-facts-figures/

Do you reckon that 19% of comedians that you see on TV are disabled?

It's not really that tiny, is it?

Hang on wait a minute....

Is that how you do your little inclusivity sums?

Ok so I assume you expect disabled people to be 19%of the prison population, 19% of all rapists, 19%of all academy award winners, 19% of teachers etc....

Thats not how it works. Especially on television.

If enough people want to see something, the networks will make it and continue it until people don't want to see it.

Unfortunately for you, there is not much of a clamouring for a comedy series about black Muslim transgender feminist in a wheelchair who goes about checking everyone's privilege.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately for you, there is not much of a clamouring for a comedy series about black Muslim transgender feminist in a wheelchair who goes about checking everyone's privilege.

Yup.. Batwoman missed it's chance to represent that.. not to worry, given time something like that will happen. Can't speak for it's ratings though.