Anne Hathaway apologies for depiction of limb difference

One eyed Jack

[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.

There was plenty of evidence given in just this instance alone, and throughout history there is plenty of evidence that people with disabilities are portrayed negatively in mainstream society because they are perceived either to be a burden on society or they are perceived as something to be feared by society.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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".

There’s a difference between being treated differently, which is one thing, and being stigmatised, which is something else entirely, and I don’t agree that people with disabilities should have to make allowances for people who treat them as though they are something to be feared. That’s completely irrational behaviour. It doesn’t mean someone will be bitter, what makes a person bitter is being unjustly stigmatised. That’s a completely rational response to being unjustly stigmatised. It doesn’t mean they have the right to take it out on everyone else, any more than anyone has the right to treat them unjustly because they’re perceived as something to be feared. How can you have a normal interaction with someone whom you know is uncomfortable in your presence? It’s anything but a normal interaction if you’re attempting to justify treating people with disabilities as though the stigma is justified.

One way of reducing that stigma is portraying people with disabilities as people who it is irrational to fear on the basis that they are disabled - treat them the same as you would anyone else, they’re actually no different on the most fundamental level of being human as you are (not necessarily you personally, but anyone who imagines people with disabilities want special treatment, when in reality they want to be treated the same as everyone else).

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

You say that like it’s a bad thing? I think what’s worse is as you suggest in a world that’s more connected than ever, people are still expected to keep quiet and accept their lot that they are to be stigmatised in echo chambers which are in no way a reflection of reality. I don’t agree that anyone should have to accept being held to a standard that puts them beneath others in the social order, and what breeds bitterness and resentment is when some people’s opinions of people with disabilities are contradicted because the uppity fcukers who just don’t “know their place”. The cognitive dissonance of having to recognise people with disabilities as people, as opposed to objects which are to be mocked and derided, is upsetting for them.

Were it not for the advancements in technology and science and being able to give a voice to people who never had one before, society would of course suit the bland “maintain the status quo” types, and people like lost voice guy and Stephen Hawking would have been regarded as a burden on society rather than having the ability to contribute to society and make society all the better for it.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Having worked with some of the most strident Deaf activists in the country, I never came across one that had any difficulty with using terms like 'listen' in normal conversation like this. Just like I never came across any person with sight loss who had any difficulty with 'see you later' or similar language.

From https://sandysview1.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/language-matters-tips-for-talking-and-writing-about-blindness-and-other-disabilities/

It is perfectly ok for you to use words like “see”, “look” or “watch” when talking with someone who is blind or visually impaired.

I have, however, come across many people with disabilities, and many disability representative organisations at home and abroad that have pointed out the offensive nature of 'handicap' as a term.

cdeb wrote: »

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?

There is no 'one' report. I posted three sources, including two governments noting that the term 'handicap' causes offence and should not be used. I can post as many other sources as you like from people with disabilities and representative organisations to confirm this. How many sources would it take?

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.

It's strange that you can make this claim given your extensive posting on the this thread from last year about a young lady with a disability being a source of ridicule and mockery on a Dublin street.

Selective memory perhaps?

cdeb wrote: »

A survey?

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

My bad.

Indeed, your bad for not recognising that a survey is a scientific data collection tool. The Census which forms the basic of planning for the economy, for transport and for education is 'a survey'.

cdeb wrote: »

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.

My first point is that using terminology like 'handicapped' when you have presented with numerous sources indicating that it causes offence to many people with disabilities and their families is gratuitously offensive, particularly when it would cost you absolutely nothing to use a term that does not cause offence.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. Let's do that.



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.

You seem to have missed the bit where you said 'Yes, I do" in response to my question about the representation of people with disabilities in comedy.

So are you still claiming that 19% (or basically one in five) of the comedians that you see on TV have a disability?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Just as I know how people react to my shaking disorder, because they don't know how to behave in such a situation.

That's not what we're seeing here. It's not a case of 'people don't know how to behave'.

People here on the thread have been presented with national and international guidance indicating that terminology like 'handicap' should not be used, and are intentionally continuing to use that terminology - choosing to be gratuitously offensive.

A multi-million commercial enterprise like The Witches doesn't really get off the hook by saying 'ah sorry we didn't know'. They should have done better.

AndrewJRenko

Gervais08 wrote: »

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.

The teacher should indeed have been fired, or at least been managed to ensure that they were actually developing, encouraging and supporting pupils instead of undermining them with nicknames.

Rubberchikken

They really have to go away and grow up, the celebs and the offended. So bloody tired of their whinging.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There was plenty of evidence given in just this instance alone, and throughout history there is plenty of evidence that people with disabilities are portrayed negatively in mainstream society because they are perceived either to be a burden on society or they are perceived as something to be feared by society.

which is not what I referred to. The piece you quoted.

There’s a difference between being treated differently, which is one thing, and being stigmatised, which is something else entirely, and I don’t agree that people with disabilities should have to make allowances for people who treat them as though they are something to be feared. That’s completely irrational behaviour. It doesn’t mean someone will be bitter, what makes a person bitter is being unjustly stigmatised. That’s a completely rational response to being unjustly stigmatised. It doesn’t mean they have the right to take it out on everyone else, any more than anyone has the right to treat them unjustly because they’re perceived as something to be feared. How can you have a normal interaction with someone whom you know is uncomfortable in your presence? It’s anything but a normal interaction if you’re attempting to justify treating people with disabilities as though the stigma is justified.

As though they are feared? You keep expanding beyond the original statement. If you are physically different or behave in ways which set you apart, then people in general will treat you differently. It's not about being fair. It's simple reality. People have certain perspectives as to what's "normal", and anyone who strays outside of that will be treated differently.

I did start to respond to the rest, but then.. why bother? You're intent on introducing aspects that neither relate to the topic, or what I previously wrote. Which is fine.. knock your socks off.. but it's not a debate I want to involve myself in when the goalposts shift, while also previous points not being dealt with, while introducing a ream of new things to talk about.

Gervais08

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The teacher should indeed have been fired, or at least been managed to ensure that they were actually developing, encouraging and supporting pupils instead of undermining them with nicknames.

Yeah my aunt wasn’t a complete snowflake blert tho so that garbage would have been laughed at.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's not what we're seeing here. It's not a case of 'people don't know how to behave'.

People here on the thread have been presented with national and international guidance indicating that terminology like 'handicap' should not be used, and are intentionally continuing to use that terminology - choosing to be gratuitously offensive.

A multi-million commercial enterprise like The Witches doesn't really get off the hook by saying 'ah sorry we didn't know'. They should have done better.

A few posters used the term, but you're suggesting its more widespread in the thread contributions than it is.

In any case, I'm done. Night folks.

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. 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.

We agree more than we differ on this I suspect, however, the assertion that the grand witch was portrayed as having
ectrodactyly is patently false.

And we do live in more enlightened times where people are rightly complaining that they aren't allowed tell stories for fear of offending people. Just because someone is offended, doesn't mean something is offensive as contradictory as that may sound.

And no, the Streisand effect is not making people act like ***** because they are told not to. It is giving ammunition to ***** who may never have made that ludicrous connection between a witch and a disabled person.

cdeb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There is no 'one' report.

I was specifically referring to the academic study on Joe Swanson (though you knew that).

You said I "should listen to the disabled" (or words to that effect) - but there's no evidence at all that the people who wrote that study listened either. They're just taking offence on behalf of someone else as far as I can see.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I posted three sources, including two governments noting that the term 'handicap' causes offence and should not be used. I can post as many other sources as you like from people with disabilities and representative organisations to confirm this. How many sources would it take?

I think one of the main points on this thread is that people don't have an exclusive right to choose to take offence at a phrase. They could be wrong to take offence. Handicapped and disabled mean the exact same thing.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Indeed, your bad for not recognising that a survey is a scientific data collection tool. The Census which forms the basic of planning for the economy, for transport and for education is 'a survey'.

Indeed. This isn't the census though. Is this survey reliable? Do you acknowledge that anyone could fudge a self-diagnosis? Do you look around you and see 19% of adults with disabilities? The CSO has stats on disability in Ireland and the numbers are heavily skewed towards the older age profile (50% of people over 75 have a disability for example) - why should you expect comedians to reflect that age spectrum?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So are you still claiming that 19% (or basically one in five) of the comedians that you see on TV have a disability?

I posed the question earlier in the thread as to why it matters how many comedians have a disability in the first place. Another poster asked if you expect 19% of all population samples - comedians, prisoners, etc - to be disabled. Do you want to answer those? And of course there's the question of comparing two completely separate age profiles, meaning your data is bad to begin with.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Having worked with some of the most strident Deaf activists in the country, I never came across one that had any difficulty with using terms like 'listen' in normal conversation like this. Just like I never came across any person with sight loss who had any difficulty with 'see you later' or similar language.

From https://sandysview1.wordpress.com/2016/06/23/language-matters-tips-for-talking-and-writing-about-blindness-and-other-disabilities/



I have, however, come across many people with disabilities, and many disability representative organisations at home and abroad that have pointed out the offensive nature of 'handicap' as a term.



There is no 'one' report. I posted three sources, including two governments noting that the term 'handicap' causes offence and should not be used. I can post as many other sources as you like from people with disabilities and representative organisations to confirm this. How many sources would it take?


It's strange that you can make this claim given your extensive posting on the this thread from last year about a young lady with a disability being a source of ridicule and mockery on a Dublin street.

Selective memory perhaps?


Indeed, your bad for not recognising that a survey is a scientific data collection tool. The Census which forms the basic of planning for the economy, for transport and for education is 'a survey'.

My first point is that using terminology like 'handicapped' when you have presented with numerous sources indicating that it causes offence to many people with disabilities and their families is gratuitously offensive, particularly when it would cost you absolutely nothing to use a term that does not cause offence.


You seem to have missed the bit where you said 'Yes, I do" in response to my question about the representation of people with disabilities in comedy.

So are you still claiming that 19% (or basically one in five) of the comedians that you see on TV have a disability?

Now andrew. Please tell me which posts exactly contradict my statement in that previous thread. I remember that thread and I know the young lady involved.

If I remember correctly my issue was the phrase hate crime and objected to the horrible act of jumping over a little persons heat being labelled a hate crime. By your standard, you might want to declare The Witches as an act of hate crime or a film that advocates for hate crimes. I would disagree with that too.

And yes, I do think that there is plenty of representation for disabled comedians, female comedians, black comedians and Asian comedians.

I do not think the figure is or should be expected to be 19% as I pointed out previously. If that was the case 19% of brain surgeons or airline pilots should be disabled.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As though they are feared? You keep expanding beyond the original statement. If you are physically different or behave in ways which set you apart, then people in general will treat you differently. It's not about being fair. It's simple reality. People have certain perspectives as to what's "normal", and anyone who strays outside of that will be treated differently.

I did start to respond to the rest, but then.. why bother? You're intent on introducing aspects that neither relate to the topic, or what I previously wrote. Which is fine.. knock your socks off.. but it's not a debate I want to involve myself in when the goalposts shift, while also previous points not being dealt with, while introducing a ream of new things to talk about.

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. You’re trying to rationalise this prejudice as though people with disabilities should just accept it and make allowances for people who want to treat them unjustly, but how does that do people with disabilities any favours?

If they don’t want to be seen as bitter then they should accept being treated unfairly? It’s circular logic which does nothing for people with disabilities, and maintains a status quo that the prejudice they experience in society is somehow justified.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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. You’re trying to rationalise this prejudice as though people with disabilities should just accept it and make allowances for people who want to treat them unjustly, but how does that do people with disabilities any favours?

If they don’t want to be seen as bitter then they should accept being treated unfairly? It’s circular logic which does nothing for people with disabilities, and maintains a status quo that the prejudice they experience in society is somehow justified.

But that's it. They wasnt a negative stereotype portrayed. They happened to share a physical characteristic.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We agree more than we differ on this I suspect, however, the assertion that the grand witch was portrayed as having
ectrodactyly is patently false.

Missing digits is one of the defining characteristics of ectrodactyly, it’s not exactly a stretch to make the association between a Witch being portrayed with an abnormality, and a person with an abnormality who experiences stigma on a daily basis.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And we do live in more enlightened times where people are rightly complaining that they aren't allowed tell stories for fear of offending people. Just because someone is offended, doesn't mean something is offensive as contradictory as that may sound.

No I get where you’re coming from, I tell jokes and they fall flat on their arse more times than anyone finds them funny. I learn from that, there’s no reason other people can’t learn from the experience too instead of complaining that they can’t make jokes or tell stories any more. Who’s the real over sensitive snowflake in that scenario - the person who complains when their jokes fall flat on their arse, or the person who learns to tell better jokes or stories? My jokes are generally still shìt, but I’m not complaining that other people don’t find them funny.

If someone is genuinely afraid to tell a joke or a story because they’re afraid of offending people, then it’s probably a shìt joke or a shìt story and they’re doing themselves and everyone else a favour by keeping it to themselves.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And no, the Streisand effect is not making people act like ***** because they are told not to. It is giving ammunition to ***** who may never have made that ludicrous connection between a witch and a disabled person.

Yeah, it does that, because those people were cnuts in the first place, and now they have extra ammo when they know it’s a sore spot for people with disabilities. The Barbara Streisand effect also has the effect of letting people with disabilities know they’re not alone, that they have support, and while people in their immediate lives may be cnuts, the vast majority of people aren’t, and it would be irrational to assume that they are.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But that's it. They wasnt a negative stereotype portrayed. They happened to share a physical characteristic.

With a Witch...

Wonderful :pac:

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With a Witch...

Wonderful :pac:

They were also bald.

How would you have portrayed a witch so as not to offend anyone? What features would you have given them?

Gervais08

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With a Witch...

Wonderful :pac:

So ****ing what ??? Technically partial limb amputees “shared a characteristic” with pirates.

You can be too woke.

briangriffin

Deleted User wrote: »

They were also bald.

How would you have portrayed a witch so as not to offend anyone? What features would you have given them?

Witches can't have long noses moles or boils or any deformity because that would offend all people with similar deformities.
Forrest Gump is offensive to people with cognitive impairment so that movie has to go, especially if they play the role of the villian.
Darby O Gill is offensive to leproachans its very stereotyped so let's get rid of that.
My left foot sure as hell couldn't be made Daniel day lewis would never get an acting job again after that portrayal.
And as for Marvel movies well I can't fly so I'm offended that they can the magical bsatards, those movies have to go.
The world is gone mad.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They were also bald.

How would you have portrayed a witch so as not to offend anyone? What features would you have given them?

It’s not about avoiding causing any offence to anyone, it’s about avoiding perpetuating negative stereotypes that are associated with people with disabilities, or people who are bald if you like, with the perception that they are someone to be treated with suspicion and fear.

It’s no different than when a portrayal of men is associated with negative stereotypes in mainstream media, the Gillette advertisement for example, plenty of men and women were offended by it, because it perpetuated negative stereotypes of men. Instead of apologising for it and saying to themselves they’d do better, Gillette went and doubled down on their bullshìt by trying to say men who were offended by their portrayal are part of the problem of “toxic masculinity”.

I don’t imagine I could portray a Witch that wouldn’t offend someone, but portraying a Witch with characteristics which are stigmatised in society already is probably not a good idea. Forgivable when they aren’t aware of it, unforgivable if they made a sequel and included the same blunder - then it’s not a mistake, it’s intentional.

Angelina Jolie’s portrayal of Maleficent was a good example of how to portray a Witch who didn’t have any features which could be associated with any group in society which are already stigmatised. There was a scene in the film which no doubt was upsetting for some people, but it was an intrinsic part of the story and not just an attempt to portray a character which was a stereotype of people who are already stigmatised in society -


Angelina Jolie: ‘Maleficent’ Scene Is A ‘Metaphor For Rape’


The point being - you can tell a story without resorting to perpetuating lazy and negative stereotypes of people who are already stigmatised in society.

Gervais08

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not about avoiding causing any offence to anyone, it’s about avoiding perpetuating negative stereotypes that are associated with people with disabilities, or people who are bald if you like, with the perception that they are someone to be treated with suspicion and fear.

It’s no different than when men are portrayed by and associated with negative stereotypes in mainstream media, the Gillette advertisement for example, plenty of men and women were offended by it, because it perpetuated negative stereotypes of men. Instead of apologising for it and saying to themselves they’d do better, Gillette went and doubled down on their bullshìt by trying to say men who were offended by their portrayal are part of the problem of “toxic masculinity”.

I don’t imagine I could portray a Witch that wouldn’t offend someone, but portraying a Witch with characteristics which are stigmatised in society already is probably not a good idea. Forgivable when they aren’t aware of it, unforgivable if they made a sequel and included the same blunder - then it’s not a mistake, it’s intentional.

Angelina Jolie’s portrayal of Maleficent was a good example of how to portray a Witch who didn’t have any features which could be associated with any group in society which are already stigmatised. There was a scene in the film which no doubt was upsetting for some people, but it was an intrinsic part of the story and not just an attempt to portray a character which was a stereotype of people who are already stigmatised in society -


Angelina Jolie: ‘Maleficent’ Scene Is A ‘Metaphor For Rape’


The point being - you can tell a story without resorting to perpetuating lazy and negative stereotypes of people who are already stigmatised in society.

Shocker - you approve of the portrayal because Jolie is gorgeous.

Sardonicat

Gervais08 wrote: »

Shocker - you approve of the portrayal because Jolie is gorgeous.

Now, that's a matter of opinion.

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

Shocker - you approve of the portrayal because Jolie is gorgeous.

And Anne Hathaway isn’t? :pac:

Neither of whom would be my type anyway, I’ve never made any secret of the fact that Gwyneth Paltrow in a fat suit is more my type, a role which she herself looks back on now as a disaster -


Gwyneth Paltrow said starring in Shallow Hal was a 'disaster' – here’s why she is right


Personally speaking, I’ve never found conventionally attractive women attractive, Anna Taylor-Joy has the widest set eyes I’ve ever seen... I digress

But no, your assumption is just wrong, on a number of levels. It has nothing to do with whether or not Angelina Jolie is conventionally attractive, and everything to do with her portrayal of the character she was playing as the reason why I thought she played the part well and why the film as a whole in telling the story (or retelling of an old story if you like), was so well done.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

They were also bald.

How would you have portrayed a witch so as not to offend anyone? What features would you have given them?

How about you ask that question to the professional designers working on the multi-million dollar movie? They're the ones who should be coming up with those answers.

briangriffin wrote: »

Witches can't have long noses moles or boils or any deformity because that would offend all people with similar deformities.
Forrest Gump is offensive to people with cognitive impairment so that movie has to go, especially if they play the role of the villian.
Darby O Gill is offensive to leproachans its very stereotyped so let's get rid of that.
My left foot sure as hell couldn't be made Daniel day lewis would never get an acting job again after that portrayal.
And as for Marvel movies well I can't fly so I'm offended that they can the magical bsatards, those movies have to go.
The world is gone mad.

If you listen to what Alex Brooker actually said, he specifically made the point that he's not out to 'cancel' anything, so you seem to have misunderstood what's going on here.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now andrew. Please tell me which posts exactly contradict my statement in that previous thread. I remember that thread and I know the young lady involved.

If I remember correctly my issue was the phrase hate crime and objected to the horrible act of jumping over a little persons heat being labelled a hate crime. By your standard, you might want to declare The Witches as an act of hate crime or a film that advocates for hate crimes. I would disagree with that too.

And yes, I do think that there is plenty of representation for disabled comedians, female comedians, black comedians and Asian comedians.

I do not think the figure is or should be expected to be 19% as I pointed out previously. If that was the case 19% of brain surgeons or airline pilots should be disabled.

This is the bit that contradicted your earlier statement; "disabled people were a source of ridicule and mockery and am glad we are more enlightened"

given that you're well aware of the particular example of Sinead's disability being a source of ridicule and mockery on Dublin streets. So much for enlightenment.

Deleted User wrote: »

A few posters used the term, but you're suggesting its more widespread in the thread contributions than it is.

In any case, I'm done. Night folks.

I didn't suggest anything about how widely spread or narrowly spread that offensive terminology is in the thread. There should be no spread, of course. There is no excuse for this gratuitous offensiveness.

Gervais08 wrote: »

Yeah my aunt wasn’t a complete snowflake blert tho so that garbage would have been laughed at.

So victims of bullying by teachers are 'complete snowflakes'. Classy.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How about you ask that question to the professional designers working on the multi-million dollar movie? They're the ones who should be coming up with those answers.

This is the bit that contradicted your earlier statement; "disabled people were a source of ridicule and mockery and am glad we are more enlightened"

given that you're well aware of the particular example of Sinead's disability being a source of ridicule and mockery on Dublin streets. So much for enlightenment.
.

Hollywood professional designers DID create an aesthetic for witches. You agree that some people were correct to find it offensive and was worthy of an apology.

Now, because they can't seem to do it, tell me how YOU would have designed a witch to look so as not to offend anyone. Actually, why do I bother? Of course you will ignore this question, because you know you are literally and definitively unable to do so and even to attempt it would undermine your paper thin argument.

And as for my "contradiction", if you look at my quote, I was CLEARLY referring to the fact that, as a society, we have come a long way from sideshows and classing people with disabilities as second class citizens.

Now does that for one minute imply that there aren't dickheads who will openly mock disabled people? No. Same argument with the Sinead incident that you have decided to bring into this. Was it acceptable? No. Was it right? No. Was it a hate crime? Also no.

Incidents of racism does not make this a racist country, incidents of rape do not indicate we have a rape culture. Incidents of mockery of disabled people does not mean that we as a society treat disabled people badly.

Bad things happen because bad people exist. To use them and them only as a snapshot of society is not only disingenuous, it's a ****ing lie.

You dragged up a thread from over a year ago as some sort of "gotcha" to try and frame me as some sort of bad guy. It in fact only proved my point.

I stand by my words Andrew. And when I am wrong I admit it. You and your pathetic 19% stat to show how disabled comedians were under represented was bollocks. Do you admit that?

Gervais08

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How about you ask that question to the professional designers working on the multi-million dollar movie? They're the ones who should be coming up with those answers.



If you listen to what Alex Brooker actually said, he specifically made the point that he's not out to 'cancel' anything, so you seem to have misunderstood what's going on here.



This is the bit that contradicted your earlier statement; "disabled people were a source of ridicule and mockery and am glad we are more enlightened"

given that you're well aware of the particular example of Sinead's disability being a source of ridicule and mockery on Dublin streets. So much for enlightenment.


I didn't suggest anything about how widely spread or narrowly spread that offensive terminology is in the thread. There should be no spread, of course. There is no excuse for this gratuitous offensiveness.


So victims of bullying by teachers are 'complete snowflakes'. Classy.

Oh do grow up. Please stop putting words in my mouth I did not say.

I was bullied in school - my point was you wouldn’t cry and start a twitter campaign to get someone fired. You would suck it up and prove the bastards wrong.

You’re what’s wrong with the world and why there’s no resilience in young people anymore.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Personally speaking, I’ve never found conventionally attractive women attractive, Anna Taylor-Joy has the widest set eyes I’ve ever seen... I digress

.

To nitpick, can you not see how mentioning the fact her eyes are more far apart than "normal" could be very offensive to people who have similar features?

Gervais08

The Wizard of Oz must send these woke idiots into apoplectic rage ffs!!!

Gervais08

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To nitpick, can you not see how mentioning the fact her eyes are more far apart than "normal" could be very offensive to people who have similar features?

He’s just trying to prove he’s not a raving misogynist by allegedly fancying fat Gwyneth Paltrow. Sure dude yeah.

The_Brood

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not about avoiding causing any offence to anyone, it’s about avoiding perpetuating negative stereotypes that are associated with people with disabilities, or people who are bald if you like, with the perception that they are someone to be treated with suspicion and fear.

It’s no different than when a portrayal of men is associated with negative stereotypes in mainstream media, the Gillette advertisement for example, plenty of men and women were offended by it, because it perpetuated negative stereotypes of men. Instead of apologising for it and saying to themselves they’d do better, Gillette went and doubled down on their bullshìt by trying to say men who were offended by their portrayal are part of the problem of “toxic masculinity”.

I don’t imagine I could portray a Witch that wouldn’t offend someone, but portraying a Witch with characteristics which are stigmatised in society already is probably not a good idea. Forgivable when they aren’t aware of it, unforgivable if they made a sequel and included the same blunder - then it’s not a mistake, it’s intentional.

Angelina Jolie’s portrayal of Maleficent was a good example of how to portray a Witch who didn’t have any features which could be associated with any group in society which are already stigmatised. There was a scene in the film which no doubt was upsetting for some people, but it was an intrinsic part of the story and not just an attempt to portray a character which was a stereotype of people who are already stigmatised in society -


Angelina Jolie: ‘Maleficent’ Scene Is A ‘Metaphor For Rape’


The point being - you can tell a story without resorting to perpetuating lazy and negative stereotypes of people who are already stigmatised in society.

Exactly what portion of society believe that people missing limbs are actual witches....and how is the answer to that trying to restrict and suppress art?

Is the argument that Hollywood has made a significant number of people believe that missing limbs = witchcraft? That's completely ridiculous.

'Avoiding perpetuating negative stereotypes' is just absolute nonsense. This is completely and solely about who cries the loudest on social media and who listens to them. The vast majority of portrayals of Eastern Europeans in movies and tv shows for example are either as villains, drug addicts or prostitutes. Any other racial group would be burning things to the ground if this is how badly they were portrayed. But how much do Eastern Europeans complain about it? Next to zero. So nothing is ever done about it.

All this whining is repugnant garbage.

AndrewJRenko

Gervais08 wrote: »

Oh do grow up. Please stop putting words in my mouth I did not say.

I was bullied in school - my point was you wouldn’t cry and start a twitter campaign to get someone fired. You would suck it up and prove the bastards wrong.

You’re what’s wrong with the world and why there’s no resilience in young people anymore.

'Suck it up' - the classic bad advice from a ill-informed parent to deal with a bullied child.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hollywood professional designers DID create an aesthetic for witches. You agree that some people were correct to find it offensive and was worthy of an apology.

Now, because they can't seem to do it, tell me how YOU would have designed a witch to look so as not to offend anyone. Actually, why do I bother? Of course you will ignore this question, because you know you are literally and definitively unable to do so and even to attempt it would undermine your paper thin argument.

And as for my "contradiction", if you look at my quote, I was CLEARLY referring to the fact that, as a society, we have come a long way from sideshows and classing people with disabilities as second class citizens.

Now does that for one minute imply that there aren't dickheads who will openly mock disabled people? No. Same argument with the Sinead incident that you have decided to bring into this. Was it acceptable? No. Was it right? No. Was it a hate crime? Also no.

Incidents of racism does not make this a racist country, incidents of rape do not indicate we have a rape culture. Incidents of mockery of disabled people does not mean that we as a society treat disabled people badly.

Bad things happen because bad people exist. To use them and them only as a snapshot of society is not only disingenuous, it's a ****ing lie.

You dragged up a thread from over a year ago as some sort of "gotcha" to try and frame me as some sort of bad guy. It in fact only proved my point.

I stand by my words Andrew. And when I am wrong I admit it. You and your pathetic 19% stat to show how disabled comedians were under represented was bollocks. Do you admit that?

Your quote still stands. You indicated that people with disabilities used to be a source of ridicule and mockery, but we are 'more enlightened' now, while you knew well that disabled people have been targeted for ridicule and mockery on the streets.

Are we really 'more enlightened' when we have people here continuing to refer to 'the handicapped' when they know well how offensive it is?

So the UK 19% stat (produced by professionals who've spent their life and career working on this stuff) is deemed 'bollocks' in a bold Trumpian move by the dunne.

Is the WHO 15% stat or a billion people worldwide also bollocks;
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health

And how about the Irish Census 2011 13% stat - is that bollocks too?

http://nda.ie/Disability-overview/Disability-Statistics/

Is every expert in the world out of step with the dunne?