Anne Hathaway apologies for depiction of limb difference

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is, because a society based on merit only works if everyone has an equal shot and then they have the same opportunities to earn merits as everyone else. When everyone has equal opportunity, then deciding who is the most suitable candidate for the role is a lot easier to decide based upon the merits of each candidate.

In a society which is actually based upon merit, there wouldn’t need to be laws which protect people from discrimination, or positive discrimination, because such laws wouldn’t be necessary.





I did -





I’ll give you another example and maybe it’ll help, I don’t know, but I’ll try anyway. Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher are two of the most creative directors in Hollywood. They’re also responsible for some of the worst contributions to the Batman franchise, but that’s not really important, the important point is how Batman and Robin were portrayed, and how Penguin was portrayed - Penguin was portrayed with all sorts of physical deformities to emphasise the idea that the character was malevolent, whereas Batman and Robin, well the poor bastards the worst they had to deal with regards to their portrayal was who had the bigger codpiece :pac:

Contrast that with the way the Penguin was portrayed in the Gotham tv series - the focus was much more on his character and character development, and the portrayal of him as a snivelling, sneaky little shìt was based upon his actions, not on his physical appearance, where he wouldn’t have looked out of place in civilised society. Essentially, they did a lot more with the characters in Gotham without all the prosthetics and making the characters look abnormal in order to get across the point that they were malevolent. The characters could be judged by their actions, or their merits, if you want to put it like that.

My apologies, I did miss your previous example and AGAIN, we are in agreement for the most part (a running theme on this thread).

I think my issue is that there is absolutely no way it was intentional and I can't see any reason that the witches couldn't be similarly portrayed in a sequel. I don't see the correlation between the two being the same. As I have said before, it just happened to be the way witches are, not because they were deformed.

With regards the gotham comparison, I agree that the subtlety works better for a programme aimed at adults, but for kids films, the subtlety would be lost.

I think, as I have said, we aren't too far from agreement, and we both abhor unnecessary cruelty and meanness, but I just don't agree that the portrayal of the Witches in this instance merited an apology. Anne Hathaway did, and she is of course well within her rights to do so, I just can't reconcile it with the situation. Being a witch and having a similar physical trait is different than being a witch BECAUSE you have a physical trait.

That's just the way I see it.

Tony EH

AMGer wrote: »

€16.99 just to rent it on Sky, anyone going to apologise for that?

LOL

/thread

One eyed Jack

Tony EH wrote: »

This didn't happen in 'The Witches'.

It did?


After telling his grandmother about the encounter the boy learns that the witches are in fact real. She says her best friend Alice fell victim to a witch and was cursed into spending the rest of her life as a chicken. The grandmother says that witches never leave once they find a child. Frantically, the boy and the grandmother decide to stay in a nearby hotel. While there, the grandmother tells the boy how to tell a witch from an ordinary woman: real witches have claws instead of fingernails which they hide by wearing gloves, are bald which they hide by wearing wigs that give them rashes, have square feet with no toes which they hide by wearing sensible shoes, have a purple tinge in their pupils and have a powerful sense of smell which they use to sniff out children.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witches_(2020_film)


One might argue that if anyone believes that, they have bigger issues than whether or not Witches exist, but the point is that it causes people with disabilities to be stigmatised unfairly because of the constant portrayals in mainstream media of the association between people with physical deformities and malevolent forces.

Tony EH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It did?

No. It didn't.

It's like people getting upset at 'Alien' because the Xneomorph's hand looks odd.




It's a ridiculous thing to look to be "upset" about.

ted1

whisky_galore wrote: »

Americans unable to tell the difference between make-believe and reality shocker.

Actually Alex Brooker made a complaint, and justified it well on the Last leg. he also said he didn't want any cancel culture just a bit more sensitivity. you should watch it back.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/11/05/alex-brooker-the-witches-reinforces-stigma-around-disability-13543174/

One eyed Jack

Tony EH wrote: »

No. It didn't.

I just pointed out to you where the association was made in the film about the signs to look out for in determining that a person is a witch!

Tony EH wrote: »

It's like people getting upset at 'Alien' because the Xneomorph's hand looks odd.

It's a ridiculous thing to look to be "upset" about.

Yes, it’s exactly like that, and if you’re a person who has such an affliction, that shìt gets old really quick when you’re constantly confronted with the association. It’s not unreasonable to be upset that the association continues to be made and you’re perceived as being someone to be suspicious of because of a deformity.

It’s exactly the same bullshìt as this sort of narrative that tries to perpetuate “rape culture” bullshìt -


Dr Cliona Saidlear said young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.


'A boy in class could be a danger' - girls warned of sex abuse


Now imagine if anyone were to take that bullshìt seriously and young boys were treated as though they actually are a danger to young girls. It wouldn’t sound so ridiculous then.

Tony EH

ted1 wrote: »

Actually Alex Brooker made a complaint, and justified it well on the Last leg. he also said he didn't want any cancel culture just a bit more sensitivity. you should watch it back.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/11/05/alex-brooker-the-witches-reinforces-stigma-around-disability-13543174/

If there's no offence intended, people shouldn't take offence.

"In adapting the original story, we worked with designers and artists to come up with a new interpretation of the cat-like claws that are described in the book. It was never the intention for viewers to feel that the fantastical, non-human creatures were meant to represent them."

Warner Bros. didn't go out of their way to represent disabled people or to portray "negative stereotypes of people with disabilities" either. You cannot treat everything as a minefield, because someone, somewhere, might claim "offence". Nothing would ever get made if that was the case.

The Witches are entirely fictional monsters. They were designed to be monstrous.

They weren't meant to represent anybody in the real world, especially disabled people.

Tony EH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, it’s exactly like that, and if you’re a person who has such an affliction, that shìt gets old really quick when you’re constantly confronted with the association. It’s not unreasonable to be upset that the association continues to be made and you’re perceived as being someone to be suspicious of because of a deformity.

It's looking for things to be "offended" by, where no offence is meant.

It's ridiculous.

Your assertion that the film makers tried to portray "negative stereotypes of people with disabilities" is baloney.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It did?


After telling his grandmother about the encounter the boy learns that the witches are in fact real. She says her best friend Alice fell victim to a witch and was cursed into spending the rest of her life as a chicken. The grandmother says that witches never leave once they find a child. Frantically, the boy and the grandmother decide to stay in a nearby hotel. While there, the grandmother tells the boy how to tell a witch from an ordinary woman: real witches have claws instead of fingernails which they hide by wearing gloves, are bald which they hide by wearing wigs that give them rashes, have square feet with no toes which they hide by wearing sensible shoes, have a purple tinge in their pupils and have a powerful sense of smell which they use to sniff out children.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witches_(2020_film)


One might argue that if anyone believes that, they have bigger issues than whether or not Witches exist, but the point is that it causes people with disabilities to be stigmatised unfairly because of the constant portrayals in mainstream media of the association between people with physical deformities and malevolent forces.

I disagree again. It no more stigmatises people with hand abnormalities than it does bald people, people who wear gloves, people with no toes or people who have a heightened sense of smell or Joe Biden (sniffing children).

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just pointed out to you where the association was made in the film about the signs to look out for in determining that a person is a witch!





Yes, it’s exactly like that, and if you’re a person who has such an affliction, that shìt gets old really quick when you’re constantly confronted with the association. It’s not unreasonable to be upset that the association continues to be made and you’re perceived as being someone to be suspicious of because of a deformity.

It’s exactly the same bullshìt as this sort of narrative that tries to perpetuate “rape culture” bullshìt -


Dr Cliona Saidlear said young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.


'A boy in class could be a danger' - girls warned of sex abuse


Now imagine if anyone were to take that bullshìt seriously and young boys were treated as though they actually are a danger to young girls. It wouldn’t sound so ridiculous then.

Signs to look out for a witch in a fictional childrens film and likening it to people actually telling girls that all boys are potential rapists in real life is not even remotely similar.

There is a world of a difference between the two.

One eyed Jack

Tony EH wrote: »

It's looking for things to be "offended" by, where no offence is meant.

It's ridiculous.

Your assertion that the film makers tried to portray "negative stereotypes of people with disabilities" is baloney.

No, it’s not my assertion that film makers try to portray negative stereotypes of people with disabilities, because I know it’s not intentional. My point is that the way people who are malevolent in mainstream media is by portraying them as having some physical deformity.

It would be disingenuous to claim that people aren’t influenced by the media they consume, and if they are offered media which makes that association, it stands to reason that people will be influenced by it. The association is most commonly negative, you’ll rarely ever see a hero or heroine with deformed limbs, even Michelle Pffiefer who was poured into a catsuit, the creative team still found room in the suit to make claws on each of her ten digits.

No offence is meant, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be pointed out that a portrayal is offensive and perpetuates a stigma which is based upon negative stereotypes as old as the portrayal of the Witches in Macbeth.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Signs to look out for a witch in a fictional childrens film and likening it to people actually telling girls that all boys are potential rapists in real life is not even remotely similar.

There is a world of a difference between the two.

It’s exactly the same when in real life there are people with physical deformities who are regarded with fear and suspicion that they are malevolent.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s exactly the same when in real life there are people with physical deformities who are regarded with fear and suspicion that they are malevolent.

Nobody thinks that. Nobody believes that people with similar physical deformities are actually malevolent witches from a fictional childrens book.

It's a million miles from girls being told that boys are rapists.

That is a ludicrous comparison

...Ghost...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just pointed out to you where the association was made in the film about the signs to look out for in determining that a person is a witch!





Yes, it’s exactly like that, and if you’re a person who has such an affliction, that shìt gets old really quick when you’re constantly confronted with the association. It’s not unreasonable to be upset that the association continues to be made and you’re perceived as being someone to be suspicious of because of a deformity.

It’s exactly the same bullshìt as this sort of narrative that tries to perpetuate “rape culture” bullshìt -


Dr Cliona Saidlear said young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger.


'A boy in class could be a danger' - girls warned of sex abuse


Now imagine if anyone were to take that bullshìt seriously and young boys were treated as though they actually are a danger to young girls. It wouldn’t sound so ridiculous then.

The trouble is, people do believe that bollix.

"Dr Cliona Saidlear said young girls need to be made aware that young boys who sit with them in the classroom can also be a danger."

And this from the director of the Rape Crisis Network.

Senator Bacik calls for more funding for the RCNI despite the tripe they preach on the airwaves. Imagine how bad they are internally if this is the stuff they make public.

I can't find it right now, but director was of the opinion that a few innocent men going to jail, or losing their lives was a very small price to pay for the justice of women. Oh, and there is no such thing as a false a false accusation according to her.....that at best, it's a misunderstanding and women need to be believed. These crack pots are helping to train Gardaí :eek:

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nobody thinks that. Nobody believes that people with similar physical deformities are actually malevolent witches from a fictional childrens book.

It's a million miles from girls being told that boys are rapists.

That is a ludicrous comparison

You’re making a very literal interpretation there in fairness. What’s ludicrous is denying that anyone makes the association between physical deformities and the persons character, and it’s rarely ever positive. The only positive mainstream portrayal I can think of are the X-men - mutants... and teenage mutant ninja turtles.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re making a very literal interpretation there in fairness. What’s ludicrous is denying that anyone makes the association between physical deformities and the persons character, and it’s rarely ever positive. The only positive mainstream portrayal I can think of are the X-men - mutants... and teenage mutant ninja turtles.

There are plenty of films and programmes where characters are good people who happen to have a disability.

And it is a literal interpretation as we are talking about a specific apology for a specific film.

Tony EH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it’s not my assertion that film makers try to portray negative stereotypes of people with disabilities, because I know it’s not intentional. My point is that the way people who are malevolent in mainstream media is by portraying them as having some physical deformity.

You claimed

"The goalposts haven’t shifted beyond arguing that portraying negative stereotypes of people with disabilities perpetuates negative stereotypes of people with disabilities. They’re not complaining about being treated differently, they’re complaining about negative stereotypes portrayed in mainstream media perpetuating the stigma they already experience unjustly."

Into the bargain, the witches in the film are entirely fictional. They don't represent anybody, nor are they portraying any negative stereotypes of people with disabilities.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would be disingenuous to claim that people aren’t influenced by the media they consume, and if they are offered media which makes that association, it stands to reason that people will be influenced by it.

'The Witches' didn't make the "association" you're trying to claim it did.

And, it's up to people to check their own "influences" and to think about them rationally. It's not up to film makers, writers, musicians, artists to be in constant turmoil over vague "what ifs", because someone, somewhere, might, maybe, claim to be offended by something they produce.

That's an absurd and ridiculous road to go down.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No offence is meant, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be pointed out that a portrayal is offensive and perpetuates a stigma which is based upon negative stereotypes as old as the portrayal of the Witches in Macbeth.

Again I'll say, if no offence is meant. Then none should be taken.

It's like getting upset because E.T.'s hand only has three fingers.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are plenty of films and programmes where characters are good people who happen to have a disability.

And it is a literal interpretation as we are talking about a specific apology for a specific film.

The point is there aren’t plenty of films where people who have a disability are portrayed as good characters. In the vast majority of films, people with disabilities are portrayed as being of questionable character.

And the reason the specific apology was made for this specific film is precisely because Anne Hathaway saw it for herself the association which didn’t occur to her before, an association that people with disabilities are faced with daily in their lives.

Until the association is pointed out to people who don’t see it, they won’t, and nothing changes for people with disabilities. If people with disabilities didn’t complain about the association, people are unlikely to be aware of it because they aren’t affected by that specific issue.

Anne Hathaway issued an apology because it was an unintentional oversight that caused offence. She didn’t go the other way like Gillette and start blaming people with disabilities for being oversensitive souls as a consequence of “toxic disability”, because that’s the kind of thing an asshole would do - refuse to acknowledge the fact that their actions have consequences that cause people to be hurt.

Kaybaykwah

In real life, she is flipping the middle finger to anyone that cares about this non-issue... with bags full of cash, and a brand new pool, etc...

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point is there aren’t plenty of films where people who have a disability are portrayed as good characters. In the vast majority of films, people with disabilities are portrayed as being of questionable character.

And the reason the specific apology was made for this specific film is precisely because Anne Hathaway saw it for herself the association which didn’t occur to her before, an association that people with disabilities are faced with daily in their lives.

Until the association is pointed out to people who don’t see it, they won’t, and nothing changes for people with disabilities. If people with disabilities didn’t complain about the association, people are unlikely to be aware of it because they aren’t affected by that specific issue.

Anne Hathaway issued an apology because it was an unintentional oversight that caused offence. She didn’t go the other way like Gillette and start blaming people with disabilities for being oversensitive souls as a consequence of “toxic disability”, because that’s the kind of thing an asshole would do - refuse to acknowledge the fact that their actions have consequences that cause people to be hurt.

That's simply not true. There are tonnes of films which don't portray disabled people as nefarious people.

One eyed Jack

Tony EH wrote: »

'The Witches' didn't make the "association" you're trying to claim it did.

It did, and people complained about the association, and Anne Hathaway understood where they were coming from, and issued an apology for causing people to be hurt, and explained that it was never her intention and had she realised it, she wouldn’t have done it. That’s just basic human decency right there - consideration for other people.

Tony EH wrote: »

And, it's up to people to check their own "influences" and to think about them rationally. It's not up to film makers, writers, musicians, artists to be in constant turmoil over vague "what ifs", because someone, somewhere, might, maybe, claim to be offended by something they produce.

That's an absurd and ridiculous road to go down.

Back to the “I maintain my right to break your balls, and it’s up to you to deal with it” way of thinking.

Tony EH wrote: »

Again I'll say, if no offence is meant. Then none should be taken.

It's like getting upset because E.T.'s hand only has three fingers.

That might work in a society where people have disappeared up their own narcissistic fundament, but it doesn’t map to reality in the slightest.

Tony EH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It did

No, it bloody well did not.

THE FILM DID NOT REPRESENT OR ASSOCIATE ANYTHING WITH THE DISABLED AT ALL.

The narrative you're trying to push is false.

Some disabled people may have inserted THEMSELVES into the film. But it did not happen the other way around.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's simply not true. There are tonnes of films which don't portray disabled people as nefarious people.

In comparison to the number of films where people of nefarious character are portrayed as being characters with physical deformities?

No there aren’t. The numbers aren’t even close.

One eyed Jack

Tony EH wrote: »

No, it bloody well did not.

THE FILM DID NOT REPRESENT OR ASSOCIATE ANYTHING WITH THE DISABLED AT ALL.

The narrative you're trying to push is false.

Some disabled people may have inserted THEMSELVES into the film. But it did not happen the other way around.

When the film star herself and the studio can see where they goofed and acknowledge the fact that they goofed, you’re in a poor position to argue that it’s people with disabilities who complained are the people who are being over sensitive and taking offence.

Tony EH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When the film star herself and the studio can see where they goofed and acknowledge the fact that they goofed, you’re in a poor position to argue that it’s people with disabilities who complained are the people who are being over sensitive and taking offence.

There is no "goof". Some people claimed to be upset at a fictional character and Hathaway headed them off at the pass in order to reduce the nonsense before it started.

In the real world, 'The Witches' made no claim about the disabled whatsoever, or made any associations with them either. The film makers didn't set out to make any claims about them AT ALL.

One eyed Jack

Tony EH wrote: »

There is no "goof". Some people claimed to be upset at a fictional character and Hathaway headed them off at the pass in order to reduce the nonsense before it started.

Or, more likely, she simply saw that they made a good point and apologised for the hurt caused.

Tony EH wrote: »

In the real world, 'The Witches' made no claim about the disabled whatsoever, or made any associations with them either. The film makers didn't set out to make any claims about them AT ALL.

Like I said earlier - the portrayal of the Grand Witch character in the film was basically the straw that broke the camels back in how nefarious characters are historically portrayed as being physically deformed in some way as a reflection of their character. Nobody is questioning that the film makers didn’t intend to make the association, it’s the fact that the association is made, constantly, and people were simply fed up with it.

Just because someone doesn’t mean to cause hurt to other people doesn’t let them off the hook, we teach that to children, it shouldn’t have to be explained to adults whom one expects should know better because we expect adults to be capable of having consideration for other people in society beyond themselves (we make allowances for adults who are cognitively impaired).

biggebruv

I was particularly offended when her mouth widens up mine does that and it’s very pretty

This is a joke next they will be saying penny wise was offensive he does all the same **** LOL

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In comparison to the number of films where people of nefarious character are portrayed as being characters with physical deformities?

No there aren’t. The numbers aren’t even close.

I beg to differ.

You must be including supernatural entities who are made look different to "normal" people as is the case with this example.

It is dishonest to say that the witches are characters who are deformed.

You may as well class any vampire film as being offensive to those suffering from fragile X syndrome as they share some characteristics.

It's such a bizarre correlation to make.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragile_X_syndrome

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Just because someone doesn’t mean to cause hurt to other people doesn’t let them off the hook, we teach that to children, it shouldn’t have to be explained to adults whom one expects should know better because we expect adults to be capable of having consideration for other people in society beyond themselves (we make allowances for adults who are cognitively impaired).

Let off the hook? Jesus, nobody should be on the hook because certain people don't like a comparison that they themselves made!

If they came out and said "people with ectrodactyly are evil" sure, hold their toeless feet to the fire. They didn't.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I beg to differ.

You must be including supernatural entities who are made look different to "normal" people as is the case with this example.

It is dishonest to say that the witches are characters who are deformed.

I’m really not. From Captain Hook in Peter Pan, to the servant in Scary Movie, the “baddie” always has some form of physical deformity. Can you think of any movies where the “hero” of the movie has a physical deformity? You’ll struggle a lot harder to come up with a list of the same length.

It’s not dishonest to say it because those physical characteristics are exactly how it is portrayed as being able to tell the difference between a witch and a normal woman.

...Ghost...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m really not. From Captain Hook in Peter Pan, to the servant in Scary Movie, the “baddie” always has some form of physical deformity. Can you think of any movies where the “hero” of the movie has a physical deformity? You’ll struggle a lot harder to come up with a list of the same length.

It’s not dishonest to say it because those physical characteristics are exactly how it is portrayed as being able to tell the difference between a witch and a normal woman.

Sloth from the goonies.
Edward Scissor hands.
Rocky Dennis from Mask
Benjamin Button
Hunchback of Notre Dame
Beast from beauty and the beast
Phantom of the opera
Wolverine and anyone from X-men really.
Ninja Turtles
Elephant man
Christy from my left foot

Should I go on?

No complaints that the heros in The Witches (Grandma and son) suddenly changed race from the source material, but the witches are all (or mostly) white. Interesting that. Yet another diversity box ticked and people still complain.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m really not. From Captain Hook in Peter Pan, to the servant in Scary Movie, the “baddie” always has some form of physical deformity. Can you think of any movies where the “hero” of the movie has a physical deformity? You’ll struggle a lot harder to come up with a list of the same length.

It’s not dishonest to say it because those physical characteristics are exactly how it is portrayed as being able to tell the difference between a witch and a normal woman.

Oh good christ almighty! Are you honestly saying Captain Hook is an example of how disabled people are portrayed as bad people?!?!?! Captain Hook got his arm chewed off by a crocodile because he was a ****.

The only people that could be offended by the portrayal of Captain Hook are poor unfortunate pirates who were partially eaten by amphibious reptiles.

While usually heroes in films aren't deformed, neither are the villains. Aside from superhero or fantasy films, anyone who is mean to a disabled character is usually the villain of the piece.

Your whole argument has turned from something reasonable into the absurd. Your assertion that the argument that FICTIONAL witches shouldn't have deformed hands as it somehow means that everyone will think that a similar deformity in real life will lead people to believe they are witches is MENTAL.

Then the captain hook reference?!!

One eyed Jack

...Ghost... wrote: »

Should I go on?

You can if you like, the point was that the list of baddies with physical deformities would be much longer than the list of heroes with physical deformities. Characters with physical deformities who are portrayed as being objects of pity doesn’t quite cut the “hero” portrayal.

...Ghost... wrote: »

No complaints that the heros in The Witches (Grandma and son) suddenly changed race from the source material, but the witches are all (or mostly) white. Interesting that. Yet another diversity box ticked and people still complain.

Are you making a complaint on their behalf, or just playing the victim, again?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can if you like, the point was that the list of baddies with physical deformities would be much longer than the list of heroes with physical deformities. Characters with physical deformities who are portrayed as being objects of pity doesn’t quite cut the “hero” portrayal.





Are you making a complaint on their behalf or just playing the victim?

Ah here.

Outside of horror films and superhero films, I would argue that you are wrong. And in those films, they aren't deformed. They are supernatural.


And to accuse someone of playing the victim because of pointing out the racial imbalance of the villains while trying to claim Captain Hook is an example of negativity towards disabled people is bordering on parody at this stage.

Tony EH

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Or, more likely...

Like I said earlier...

Enough.

I don't have the life left in me to keep going round and round with this nonsense.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah here.

Outside of horror films and superhero films, I would argue that you are wrong. And in those films, they aren't deformed. They are supernatural.

They’re supernatural, and they’re still physically deformed! That’s the association right there, and you’re still going to tell me it doesn’t exist, that it is inferred by people with physical deformities? They sure as hell didn’t ask for that kind of representation in mainstream media! :pac:

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And to accuse someone of playing the victim because of pointing out the racial imbalance of the villains while trying to claim Captain Hook is an example of negativity towards disabled people is bordering on parody at this stage.

No, I’m asking the question because Ghost appears to be under the impression that there is a war against white men.

...Ghost...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can if you like, the point was that the list of baddies with physical deformities would be much longer than the list of heroes with physical deformities. Characters with physical deformities who are portrayed as being objects of pity doesn’t quite cut the “hero” portrayal.

You are unable to back your argument with any facts and so your assertions are meaningless and can be written off as nothing more than drivel.

Are you making a complaint on their behalf, or just playing the victim, again?

I don't take to twitter with faux rage and upset, nor do I claim to be a victim. That's for the woke crowd to do.

trashcan

keano_afc wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaC1-U8LIY0

Deserves another watch.

That is superb. Vintage Bill Maher.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re supernatural, and they’re still physically deformed! That’s the association right there, and you’re still going to tell me it doesn’t exist, that it is inferred by people with physical deformities? They sure as hell didn’t ask for that kind of representation in mainstream media! :pac:





No, I’m asking the question because Ghost appears to be under the impression that there is a war against white men.

They aren't deformed, thats the way they have been written to look. The fact they may share a characteristic with some real life person is unfortunate but absolutely unavoidable. They will inevitably look like a real life person due to the massive range of traits people possess. FFS, you used captain hook as an example. Does a film company need to be prepared to apologise for any fictional character if some lunatic takes offense because it looks a little like them?

They didn't get that representation in mainstream media any more than bald women did by the depiction of the witches.

And your perceived notion that Ghost thinks there is a war against men? Is that any more ridiculous than your assertion that disabled people are being victimised through film?

One eyed Jack

...Ghost... wrote: »

You are unable to back your argument with any facts and so your assertions are meaningless and can be written off as nothing more than drivel.

I don't take to twitter with faux rage and upset, nor do I claim to be a victim. That's for the woke crowd to do.

How’s that war against white men going? You winning? :pac:

...Ghost...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I’m asking the question because Ghost appears to be under the impression that there is a war against white men.

Are you suggesting that males (especially white ones) are not being overlooked based on their gender and skin colour?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How’s that war against white men going? You winning? :pac:

Ugh... What a horrible way to discuss any topic and a good example of what Ghost was actually alluding to.

Feelings of discrimination completely disregarded because of the colour and sex of the people involved, yet you expect your assertion of disabled people being vilified because of captain hook to be taken seriously?

...Ghost...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How’s that war against white men going? You winning? :pac:

Considering all the token appointments in politics and the shoehorned castings in hollywood, I think it will be a long fight with many divisions. Most recent example was Von Der Leyen asking Ireland to put forward a male and female candidate for Hogans job. We all knew what gender was to be selected before we knew who was being put forward. And the irony is the man actually had the better qualifications for the portfolio offered :pac:

...Ghost...

Deleted User wrote: »

Ugh... What a horrible way to discuss any topic.

Unfortunately he has run out of steam and deflects with a bit of mud slinging and poking. We are all used to it on boards

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They aren't deformed, thats the way they have been written to look. The fact they may share a characteristic with some real life person is unfortunate but absolutely unavoidable. They will inevitably look like a real life person due to the massive range of traits people possess. FFS, you used captain hook as an example. Does a film company need to be prepared to apologise for any fictional character if some lunatic takes offense because it looks a little like them?

It’s not unavoidable? They’re fictional, supernatural characters remember, they can be written any way anyone likes! It just so happens that writers often default to lazy stereotypes of reflecting character traits in physical characteristics, and that’s where the association comes from.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And your perceived notion that Ghost thinks there is a war against men? Is that any more ridiculous than your assertion that disabled people are being victimised through film?

It’s not MY perceived notion, when they’ve written it themselves right here -

...Ghost... wrote: »

But some things are. What some people call the fight for equality and inclusiveness, a reasonable person calls the war against white men and the exclusion of others.

Does it really seem unreasonable for anyone to point out don’t piss on my shoes and tell me it’s raining?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ugh... What a horrible way to discuss any topic and a good example of what Ghost was actually alluding to.

Feelings of discrimination completely disregarded because of the colour and sex of the people involved, yet you expect your assertion of disabled people being vilified because of captain hook to be taken seriously?

It was a joke


You’d think people who are arguing people shouldn’t be so easily offended, wouldn’t be so easily offended themselves.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not unavoidable? They’re fictional, supernatural characters remember, they can be written any way anyone likes! It just so happens that writers often default to lazy stereotypes of reflecting character traits in physical characteristics, and that’s where the association comes from.

Why should they not have a deformed hand? Why should they be white? Why should they be bald? Why should they be female looking?

ANYONE can be offended if they look like them. **** that. They weren't specifically written to resemble a specific category of people or any specific person. It is unavoidable that they would.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was a joke


You’d think people who are arguing people shouldn’t be so easily offended, wouldn’t be so easily offended themselves.

And here we go again. The accusation that I am offended.

I am not offended. Just because I don't like your post doesn't mean it offended me.

But it is telling that someone who thinks disabled people could be offended by Captain hook doesn't seem to know what offense actually is.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why should they not have a deformed hand? Why should they be white? Why should they be bald? Why should they be female looking?

ANYONE can be offended if they look like them. **** that. They weren't specifically written to resemble a specific category of people or any specific person. It is unavoidable that they would.

The point was never that the villian shouldn’t be deformed, the point being made is that most of the time, they are! Essentially the point is that people with deformities are overly represented as villians. I’ve already pointed out that it doesn’t have to be the case, that villians can be portrayed by their character and not their appearance, but you shot that down as something only adults would get, which is missing the point that the complaint is based upon children learning from film and media portrayals that people with disabilities or people who are deformed in some way are to be regarded with suspicion. It’s easily avoidable simply by writing characters based upon their character, without the association of their physical appearance with their character.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And here we go again. The accusation that I am offended.

I am not offended. Just because I don't like your post doesn't mean it offended me.

But it is telling that someone who thinks disabled people could be offended by Captain hook doesn't seem to know what offense actually is.

Ok then, people didn’t like how they were being portrayed in the film, they’re not offended though. Let’s be absolutely crystal clear about that much, they’re not offended, they just didn’t like it.

I didn’t say either that people who are disabled could be offended by Captain Hook. I was giving an example of a character who is a villian who is portrayed as having a physical deformity. I’m not the least bit offended that he is portrayed as being white, nor do I think it’s an attack on white men, nor do I have any issue with the portrayal personally. The point is that just because I don’t have an issue with the portrayal, doesn’t mean other people can’t, or that they’re being unreasonable, or that they are taking offence where none was intended just to break anyone’s balls.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point was never that the villian shouldn’t be deformed, the point being made is that most of the time, they are! Essentially the point is that people with deformities are overly represented as villians. I’ve already pointed out that it doesn’t have to be the case, that villians can be portrayed by their character and not their appearance, but you shot that down as something only adults would get, which is missing the point that the complaint is based upon children learning from film and media portrayals that people with disabilities or people who are deformed in some way are to be regarded with suspicion. It’s easily avoidable simply by writing characters based upon their character, without the association of their physical appearance with their character.





Ok then, people didn’t like how they were being portrayed in the film, they’re not offended though. Let’s be absolutely crystal clear about that much, they’re not offended, they just didn’t like it.

I didn’t say either that people who are disabled could be offended by Captain Hook. I was giving an example of a character who is a villian who is portrayed as having a physical deformity. I’m not the least bit offended that he is portrayed as being white, nor do I think it’s an attack on white men, nor do I have any issue with the portrayal personally. The point is that just because I don’t have an issue with the portrayal, doesn’t mean other people can’t, or that they’re being unreasonable, or that they are taking offence where none was intended just to break anyone’s balls.

Nah **** this. It's getting circular and we are missing each others points.

So the people didn't like how they were portrayed but not offended? Grand, but it kind of flies in the face of the apology as they regretted any offense caused.... Oh, this was another one of your "jokes"?

The witches aren't deformed. They can't be. They have a couple of fingers and they are like cats claws. They aren't human so this isn't a deformity. The fact that some people happen to have a deformity similar to that is unfortunate. Either the guys complaining about this are a little over sensitive or the alopecia and toe amputee brigade are made of sterner stuff as these are also traits of the witches. No parallels were drawn by the film makers. No need for any apology.

And your last point is silly. You understand why people might get offended by Captain Hook but dismiss and joke about another poster who is concerned about white men being discriminated against?

It doesn't reconcile and it does smack of virtue signalling.