Anne Hathaway apologies for depiction of limb difference

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why not just stick to what actually did happen instead of inventing hypothetical scenarios that didn’t?

If alopecia sufferers came forward and expressed the opinion that they were hurt by the association, and Anne Hathaway apologised to them for any hurt caused and said if she had been aware of the association, she wouldn’t have agreed to the portrayal of the Grand Witch in that way because she believes in a basic standard of human decency that everyone should strive for, I’d equally admire her for it.

I don’t admire anyone who disingenuously makes claims like they’re being censored, or political correctness is taking over, or any other multitude of things that aren’t happening, or arguing that because they’re not offended, nobody else should be offended.

You have to appreciate the irony of anyone arguing that people are too easily offended

I don't think it's unfair to put forward a hypothetical situation as if the actual scenario is valid, I would assume the other would have to be too. It was me asking a question to gauge where your mindset is. You answered and I thank you for it.

I just disagree and am not convinced by her apology. How many people need to be offended by a depiction of a character for it to warrant an apology in the name of basic human decency?

And again, I'm not offended by the apology, I am merely baffled at the lengths people go to virtue signal. No offense is taken whatsoever. I don't think this scenario is anything to do with censoring or that people shouldn't be offended. But I do believe that the race to be politically correct is hindering and harming those they assert to be helping.

In an astounding example of the Streisand effect in action, highlighting this disability and it's comparison to an actual deformity will do nothing except tie the two together.

Your last line is absolutely what we have come to expect from people who attempt to shut down a discussion.

One eyed Jack

Nermal wrote: »

The entire concept of a witch, whether portrayed as an ugly gnarled crone or beautiful enchantress, perpetuates the stigma of women as deceitful, devious, underhanded and false.

All stories can be construed as hurtful to someone. If you don't want anyone to be 'hurt', we can't tell any more stories. You think you're birthing a world free from hurt; it'll be free from joy too. Don't act surprised when we don't want to join you in it.

Why would you assume I’d want you in it in the first place? :pac:

You’ll still be able to make up whatever stories you like, hell you’re doing it right now in claiming that you won’t be able to. I don’t think I’m birthing a world free from hurt at all, there will still be plenty of obnoxious fcuks who will make it their business to ensure other people shall be as miserable as they are and shouldn’t ever speak up about it.

cdeb

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And for what it’s worth, comparing the expressing of basic human decency to North Korean methods of thought control is just stupid.

But again, you see, you're just dismissing this as "stupid" without engaging in a discussion about it.

I've actually quoted a passage of self-criticism which is very common in North Korea and shown how it compared very closely to this case - both in an imagined sleight (and let's be clear here that the sleight in this case is an imagined one) and in the form of the grovelling, public, forced apology. I've shown that in North Korea, it's used to ensure people think a certain way and have suggested it's being used the same way here.

Your response to that is it's "just stupid"

That's not a very cogent argument now, is it?

AllForIt

I just disagree and am not convinced by her apology.

She wrote it like "I just want these idiots to go away so I'll write this shyte and they'll go away".

cdeb

AllForIt wrote: »

She wrote it like "I just want these idiots to go away so I'll write this shyte and they'll go away".

The irony is that by giving them air, they'll be back hassling someone else soon enough.

The gas thing is that a better reaction for any kid seeing this is to go into school and tell anyone slagging them that they'll turn them into a mouse. Embrace it rather than go off crying about it. I knew a fella who was missing a finger and he'd go around pretending to cut his finger off and have it land in someone's bag of chips. It's a far healthier response that this idea that (a) you should take offence at anything and everything and (b) your offence cannot be challenged; it is de facto correct and in fact offensive to suggest otherwise.

So pandering to this isn't, as OEJ tries to suggest, human decency. I would argue it's actually harmful in the long-term

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think it's unfair to put forward a hypothetical situation as if the actual scenario is valid, I would assume the other would have to be too. It was me asking a question to gauge where your mindset is. You answered and I thank you for it.

I just disagree and am not convinced by her apology. How many people need to be offended by a depiction of a character for it to warrant an apology in the name of basic human decency?

And again, I'm not offended by the apology, I am merely baffled at the lengths people go to virtue signal. No offense is taken whatsoever. I don't think this scenario is anything to do with censoring or that people shouldn't be offended. But I do believe that the race to be politically correct is hindering and harming those they assert to be helping.

In an astounding example of the Streisand effect in action, highlighting this disability and it's comparison to an actual deformity will do nothing except tie the two together.

Your last line is absolutely what we have come to expect from people who attempt to shut down a discussion.

How many people need to be offended by a depiction of a character in order for it to warrant an apology? One person is all it should take really to have someone realise that the portrayal could have been done differently. It didn’t occur to them at the time and they weren’t aware of it. They are now, and have apologised for any offence caused. If someone were to continue to rake Anne Hathaway over the coals for it, I’d say they were taking the piss and playing the victim.

I think the point being made in highlighting the issue is that the two were tied together already, and the portrayal on the big screen only served to perpetuate that portrayal and association of people with disabilities as freaks and all the rest of it (there’s no way I’m using the term “limb differences”, it’s a stupid euphemism IMO).

My last line was a joke, I’ve never tried to shut down conversation, I just thought it was funny because it is ironic that people are complaining about the drive to be more PC and all the rest of it, when in reality it’s safe to say they couldn’t care less. I don’t care less about political correctness. I do care and I do admire someone who shows a basic level of human decency towards others.

AndrewJRenko

Tony EH wrote: »

Neither is Anne Hathaway's witch.

Correct. So I wouldn't be quoting any comments from Anne Hathaway's witch as being particularly relevant in this discussion.

cdeb wrote: »

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.

Ah, so the people in the sector who have spent decades working on definitions and data collection methods should now just drop everything because some lad on boards thinks they are irrelevant, largely because they highlight facts that are just slightly unpalatable.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Is that the sound of goalposts shifting I hear. Go back to year earlier responses, the ones before you realised that the 'tiny minority' is actually one-in-five and see what you said.

cdeb

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How many people need to be offended by a depiction of a character in order for it to warrant an apology? One person is all it should take really

Nonsense.

What if that one person is wrong to take offence?

You don't get to go around demanding apologies for any and every imaginary sleight. If you do, I'd say there was something wrong with you to be honest.

cdeb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Ah, so the people in the sector who have spent decades working on definitions and data collection methods should now just drop everything because some lad on boards thinks they are irrelevant, largely because they highlight facts that are just slightly unpalatable.

The "facts" aren't unpalatable; they're unobservable.

I wonder how many of those are insurance fraud, for example. Lot of fake whiplash claims going around. Means I can't lift things, you know. Disability.

AndrewJRenko

Nermal wrote: »

Try to look more deeply at statistics quoted by interest groups.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874507/family-resources-survey-2018-19.pdf

Given that a large fraction - probably a significant majority, in fact - of that 19% have disabilities that will not be obvious, it would in fact be entirely possible for comedians to be a reflection of the population at whole.

However, they aren't of course, nor should we expect them to be. It's profoundly stupid to think that we should have equal representation in all facets of life.

I haven't come across a 'probable' significant majority before. It's either a majority (>50%) or it's not.

So are you actually saying that people with solely invisible disabilities are the majority of people with disabilities?

cdeb

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would I legitimise a stupid comparison with a cogent argument?

What’s to discuss? Your comparison is stupid, and you should feel bad.

Ah, well if that's the way you feel a debate should be conducted, I'll leave you to it so.

AndrewJRenko

cdeb wrote: »

The "facts" aren't unpalatable; they're unobservable.

I wonder how many of those are insurance fraud, for example. Lot of fake whiplash claims going around. Means I can't lift things, you know. Disability.

You don't get insurance money for ticking a box on a survey.

cdeb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You don't get insurance money for ticking a box on a survey.

A survey?

Jaysus, I thought the report was based on something scientific.

My bad.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How many people need to be offended by a depiction of a character in order for it to warrant an apology? One person is all it should take really to have someone realise that the portrayal could have been done differently. It didn’t occur to them at the time and they weren’t aware of it. They are now, and have apologised for any offence caused. If someone were to continue to rake Anne Hathaway over the coals for it, I’d say they were taking the piss and playing the victim.

I think the point being made in highlighting the issue is that the two were tied together already, and the portrayal on the big screen only served to perpetuate that portrayal and association of people with disabilities as freaks and all the rest of it (there’s no way I’m using the term “limb differences”, it’s a stupid euphemism IMO).

My last line was a joke, I’ve never tried to shut down conversation, I just thought it was funny because it is ironic that people are complaining about the drive to be more PC and all the rest of it, when in reality it’s safe to say they couldn’t care less. I don’t care less about political correctness. I do care and I do admire someone who shows a basic level of human decency towards others.

I appreciate that. When I referred to your last line, I did hope you meant it as a joke, but sadly it's all to often used by people who genuinely want to stifle debate.

Again though, if only one person needs to be offended by a portrayal of a character who resembles them in a way, absolutely every television programme, every book, every picture and everyTHING in this world needs to apologise. It's such an untenable metric to gauge basic human decency.

I'm not saying you are saying it's the only metric, but the inference that her apology is an example of basic human decency implies that the lack of an apology for something that offends someone is the opposite.

I also disagree that the portrayal of the witches exacerbates the depiction of people with abnormalities as freaks. It patently doesn't unless you choose to align the two. It's a massive false equivalency.

AndrewJRenko

cdeb wrote: »

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.

No 'uproar', but it has been the topic of a serious conference paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318723240_Disability_portrayals_in_the_media_mock_and_the_role_of_witnesses_in_the_case_of_Joe_Swanson_in_the_Family_Guy_series

Try listening to people with disabilities for a change.

One eyed Jack

cdeb wrote: »

Nonsense.

What if that one person is wrong to take offence?

You don't get to go around demanding apologies for any and every imaginary sleight. If you do, I'd say there was something wrong with you to be honest.

Thing is, nobody really gives a shìt what you think. You’re not Anne Hathaway, a major player in Hollywood with considerable influence in society and being an actress they have an enormous amount of control over the characters they portray and how they are portrayed. She’s also a human being so when she sees that she goofed, she’s mature enough that she can apologise for hurting others and makes their lives just that tiny, incy bit easier, as opposed to your own North Korean approach.

cdeb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No 'uproar', but it has been the topic of a serious conference paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318723240_Disability_portrayals_in_the_media_mock_and_the_role_of_witnesses_in_the_case_of_Joe_Swanson_in_the_Family_Guy_series

Try listening to people with disabilities for a change.

What's your point there? So the handicapped guy is the butt of some jokes in the show. Well duh - it's a comedy show. Everyone is the butt of jokes.

Should the handicapped guy not be the butt of jokes? Would that not be discriminatory though? Why shouldn't he be made fun of like everyone else?

I don't know what your point is here to be honest.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is that the sound of goalposts shifting I hear. Go back to year earlier responses, the ones before you realised that the 'tiny minority' is actually one-in-five and see what you said.

Ok. Let's do that.

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.

Unless you are saying one in 5 people are trans, you are talking out of your backside when it comes to goalpost shifting.

I await your Anne Hathaway style apology.

cdeb

One eyed Jack wrote: »

as opposed to your own North Korean approach.

Again, more than happy to discuss that with you if you want.

But this stuff of "You're just stupid" is, to be honest, more offensive than a four-fingered witch. It is funny how human decency doesn't seem to apply to you.

(I'm not actually offended or looking for an apology btw. I'm more mature than that and am happy to just judge you as a bit of a crank. But the hypocrisy is worth pointing out)

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Try listening to people with disabilities for a change.

That's a little insensitive. He could be deaf. How exclusive of you.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I appreciate that. When I referred to your last line, I did hope you meant it as a joke, but sadly it's all to often used by people who genuinely want to stifle debate.

Again though, if only one person needs to be offended by a portrayal of a character who resembles them in a way, absolutely every television programme, every book, every picture and everyTHING in this world needs to apologise. It's such an untenable metric to gauge basic human decency.

I'm not saying you are saying it's the only metric, but the inference that her apology is an example of basic human decency implies that the lack of an apology for something that offends someone is the opposite.

I also disagree that the portrayal of the witches exacerbates the depiction of people with abnormalities as freaks. It patently doesn't unless you choose to align the two. It's a massive false equivalency.

They don’t need to apologise, any more than anyone who is offended by something they find offensive needs to shut up about it and keep their head down.

I know you disagree with the portrayal of the Witches as exacerbating the depiction of people with abnormalities, but the portrayal is founded on the idea that they are to be feared and ostracised from civilised society. It’s not a false equivalence at all when it’s based upon a historical reality of how people with abnormalities have been represented in Art and the way they were treated in society throughout history.

cdeb

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a little insensitive. He could be deaf. How exclusive of you.

There's also no indication the guys who wrote the report are handicapped.

Maybe they should listen to handicapped people and see if they're offended by jokes about a very popular (and able) handicapped cartoon character in a very popular comedy?

One eyed Jack

cdeb wrote: »

Again, more than happy to discuss that with you if you want.

But this stuff of "You're just stupid" is, to be honest, more offensive than a four-fingered witch. It is funny how human decency doesn't seem to apply to you.

(I'm not actually offended or looking for an apology btw. I'm more mature than that and am happy to just judge you as a bit of a crank. But the hypocrisy is worth pointing out)

I didn’t say you were stupid? I said your comparison was stupid, which it is. That’s why I see no reason to discuss it. Discuss the comparison with someone who gives a shìt.

The reason I said you were using the North Korean approach is because you made the point that you would consider it would have to be something wrong with me if I expressed offence at something where you didn’t think I should be offended because you’re not offended.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They don’t need to apologise, any more than anyone who is offended by something they find offensive needs to shut up about it and keep their head down.

I know you disagree with the portrayal of the Witches as exacerbating the depiction of people with abnormalities, but the portrayal is founded on the idea that they are to be feared and ostracised from civilised society. It’s not a false equivalence at all when it’s based upon a historical reality of how people with abnormalities have been represented in Art and the way they were treated in society throughout history.

I agree that in the past, disabled people were a source of ridicule and mockery and am glad we are more enlightened.

This particular example harkens back to those days though and the only people equating the two these days are the perpetually offended and arseholes who would have insulted disabled people regardless of a perceived correlation between a witch and someone whose hand looks different.

This apology and the complaints that led to it have created the parallel rather than the depiction itself

cdeb

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I said your comparison was stupid, which it is. That’s why I see no reason to discuss it. Discuss the comparison with someone who gives a shìt.

And yet you still can't even begin to give a single argument against it. You instead just throw out personal insults, while praising other people for "human decency". Which is utterly hypocritical, I'm sure you'll agree.

You seem to think that when you say things, that de facto makes them true. That's not how debating works in the real world unfortunately.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree that in the past, disabled people were a source of ridicule and mockery and am glad we are more enlightened.

This particular example harkens back to those days though and the only people equating the two these days are the perpetually offended and arseholes who would have insulted disabled people regardless of a perceived correlation between a witch and someone whose hand looks different.

This apology and the complaints that led to it have created the parallel rather than the depiction itself

The complaints that led to it were as a result of the depiction? And the apology from Anne Hathaway followed from becoming aware of the complaints. Anne Hathaway chose to apologise for the depiction and the fact that she wasn’t aware of the association before. Someone who couldn’t even acknowledge it is a greater asshole IMO. I don’t think this is a case of the perpetually offended at all as though it’s part of the culture wars.




Now Cuties, on the other hand

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The complaints that led to it were as a result of the depiction? And the apology from Anne Hathaway followed from becoming aware of the complaints. Anne Hathaway chose to apologise for the depiction and the fact that she wasn’t aware of the association before. Someone who couldn’t even acknowledge it is a greater asshole IMO. I don’t think this is a case of the perpetually offended at all as though it’s part of the culture wars.




Now Cuties, on the other hand

The witches were depicted as having misshapen hands. Getting offended by that on the basis that you also have a misshapen hand is the equivalent of people with pointy incisors getting offended by the portrayal of vampires or people of short stature being offended by the leprechaun film.

Just because a certain feature resembles a feature you may have, doesn't mean it's directed at you.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The witches were depicted as having misshapen hands. Getting offended by that on the basis that you also have a misshapen hand is the equivalent of people with pointy incisors getting offended by the portrayal of vampires or people of short stature being offended by the leprechaun film.

Just because a certain feature resembles a feature you may have, doesn't mean it's directed at you.

I don’t think anyone was making that argument. The argument was simply that the portrayal of the Grand Witch as having entrodactyly just added to the stigma that people with disabilities already experience. You made the point that we live in more enlightened times, and yet here we are in a thread where people are complaining that they won’t be able to tell stories if they can’t offend people. They’re admitting that they have absolutely no imagination (I guess that qualifies them for a job as a scriptwriter in Hollywood ).

As for the examples you gave, I have no doubt there were people offended by negative portrayals of characteristics that the people with those characteristics can’t change. But what people with those characteristics can do, is speak up about the constant negative portrayals of people with disabilities as people who should be feared.

Sure, there’s the potential of the Barbara Streisand effect, but that contradicts your earlier point that we live in a more enlightened society if all it takes for some people to behave like cnuts is being asked not to behave like a cnut.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think anyone was making that argument. The argument was simply that the portrayal of the Grand Witch as having entrodactyly just added to the stigma that people with disabilities already experience.

Except no evidence was submitted to show that people with disabilities are facing a stigma due to the portrayal of witches. The only reference is to people who claimed to take offense and that it might lead to such behavior/perceptions.

People with disabilities receive some stigma, or are treated differently, because they are different from others. Most people don't have much personal experience with them, so they tend to be 'hesitant' in dealing with them. It's basic common sense.

I'm not because I've worked with them at many different periods during my life, but I can remember when that wasn't the case. Just as I know how people react to my shaking disorder, because they don't know how to behave in such a situation.

When you are "different" from the majority, you have to make allowances for their behavior towards you. Not doing so, will turn you bitter very quickly, and ultimately stifle your chances of having any kind of normal interactions with others who are not similarly "disabled".

You made the point that we live in more enlightened times, and yet here we are in a thread where people are complaining that they won’t be able to tell stories if they can’t offend people. They’re admitting that they have absolutely no imagination (I guess that qualifies them for a job as a scriptwriter in Hollywood ).

No. You're misrepresenting what has been said throughout the thread... in a world, where everyone is represented (due to the connectivity of the internet and social media), there will be some people who get offended... and any expression that shows a fictional character may be grounds for that <insert group> to be offended. By accepting that this situation (this particular scenario) is perfectly valid, you give grounds for every other group to voice their offense at what others are doing, with the expectation of a public response.

Gervais08

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except no evidence was submitted to show that people with disabilities are facing a stigma due to the portrayal of witches. The only reference is to people who claimed to take offense and that it might lead to such behavior/perceptions.

People with disabilities receive some stigma, or are treated differently, because they are different from others. Most people don't have much personal experience with them, so they tend to be 'hesitant' in dealing with them. It's basic common sense.

I'm not because I've worked with them at many different periods during my life, but I can remember when that wasn't the case. Just as I know how people react to my shaking disorder, because they don't know how to behave in such a situation.

When you are "different" from the majority, you have to make allowances for their behavior towards you. Not doing so, will turn you bitter very quickly, and ultimately stifle your chances of having any kind of normal interactions with others who are not similarly "disabled".



No. You're misrepresenting what has been said throughout the thread... in a world, where everyone is represented (due to the connectivity of the internet and social media), there will be some people who get offended... and any expression that shows a fictional character may be grounds for that <insert group> to be offended. By accepting that this situation (this particular scenario) is perfectly valid, you give grounds for every other group to voice their offense at what others are doing, with the expectation of a public response.

My late aunt had a nose you open a can of beer with - she was nicknamed Golda Mier by a teacher at school.

Many a Halloween she dressed up as a witch to scare trick or treaters. I imagine she’d be done for some sort of microagression now and her teacher fired.