Anne Hathaway apologies for depiction of limb difference

One eyed Jack

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.

Some people would feel they had to do that, some people weren’t so fortunate. The real issue is why should anyone have to? It’s the person who tries to humiliate them is the one with the problem which should be addressed.

There’s plenty of resilience in young people btw, it’s the reason why they don’t feel they have to stay silent any more when they’re being picked on by an adult who one expects given their position as a teacher they ought to know better.

I get the resistance to having to be more thoughtful about how we treat other people, but just because you handled being bullied the way you did, doesn’t mean everyone else should handle being humiliated the same way you did. It’s not them who are the problem, it’s the person who thinks they shouldn’t speak up about being humiliated who allows people to think their behaviour is acceptable.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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?

Yes Andrew. My quote does stand.

Unless of course you are asserting that we still round up disabled people and as a society mock them and use them for our entertainment. (Britain's got talent may be the exception that proves the rule)

Do you believe that society is no more enlightened than the days of carnival freakshows because of a horrible incident where a man jumped over a small persons head?

That is a bizarre and warped view of society if that's honestly where you are going with this.

And your statistics? My challenge to you is to prove that even if 19% of the population was disabled, that figure should be apparent in the world of comedy? It's a stupid to assert that as it would be for me to assert that 19% of gardai should be disabled. If it should be representative in the world of comedy, why not in every other industry?

And well done for predictably ignoring how your witch would be portrayed.

Gervais08

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some people would feel they had to do that, some people weren’t so fortunate. The real issue is why should anyone have to? It’s the person who tries to humiliate them is the one with the problem which should be addressed.

There’s plenty of resilience in young people btw, it’s the reason why they don’t feel they have to stay silent any more when they’re being picked on by an adult who one expects given their position as a teacher they ought to know better.

I get the resistance to having to be more thoughtful about how we treat other people, but just because you handled being bullied the way you did, doesn’t mean everyone else should handle being humiliated the same way you did. It’s not them who are the problem, it’s the person who thinks they shouldn’t speak up about being humiliated who allows people to think their behaviour is acceptable.

I was told growing up that it was the bullies’ fault - and not to let them get to me: to give as good as I got and never let them see they got to me (which they sometimes did).

I don’t see how that is poor advice.

Gervais08

Gervais08 wrote: »

I was told growing up that it was the bullies’ fault - and not to let them get to me: to give as good as I got and never let them see they got to me (which they sometimes did).

I don’t see how that is poor advice.

That is good advice but every person is different so that may not work for everyone. Bullying is ****ing horrible and comes in many forms.

But what definitely won't work is telling the victim that they are right to feel victimised and society thinks of them as subhuman but we have heroes that don't wear capes that will constantly remind people how different they are and should be immune from mockery on the basis they are different.

One eyed Jack

[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?

That is indeed a nitpick, but no, I can’t see how mentioning a feature I find attractive in in one specific woman would be considered offensive by women who share similar features?

Gervais08 wrote: »

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

Sure, me, before Adele lost all the weight -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not a virtue signaller by any stretch of the imagination, but I’d fancy Adele.

This isn’t the thread for it though as Adele isn’t at all considered supposedly extremely attractive generally speaking :pac:

Like I said, I’ve never made any secret of the fact that I find fat women attractive. It was your earlier comment about Gwyneth Paltrow in Shallow Hal and the point you made that your inner beauty is hotter than Gwyneth Paltrow that reminded me of it -

Gervais08 wrote: »

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

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

I was told growing up that it was the bullies’ fault - and not to let them get to me: to give as good as I got and never let them see they got to me (which they sometimes did).

I don’t see how that is poor advice.

I didn’t say it was poor advice? It clearly worked out well for you and continues to work well.

My point was that just because it worked for you, shouldn’t mean that other people should take shìt from others the same way you did. It doesn’t mean they’re any less resilient than you are, it just means that nobody should have to put up with that kind of behaviour from others in the first place.

Gervais08

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is good advice but every person is different so that may not work for everyone. Bullying is ****ing horrible and comes in many forms.

But what definitely won't work is telling the victim that they are right to feel victimised and society thinks of them as subhuman but we have heroes that don't wear capes that will constantly remind people how different they are and should be immune from mockery on the basis they are different.

We’re not that far apart I feel - and sadly this constant apologizing a la Hathaway does nothing to empower people; giving people not qualified jobs just to tick a box helps no one. It probably hinders if anything.

The most admired group to me are the Paralympic athletes - not because they overcome adversity but because they often don’t consider themselves to HAVE an adversity, they just get on with it and I love them for it.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is good advice but every person is different so that may not work for everyone. Bullying is ****ing horrible and comes in many forms.

But what definitely won't work is telling the victim that they are right to feel victimised and society thinks of them as subhuman but we have heroes that don't wear capes that will constantly remind people how different they are and should be immune from mockery on the basis they are different.

Yeah td, the REAL heroes who don’t wear capes are the people who complain about having to be considerate of other people.

That’s as disingenuous as what you’re saying, before you point out I’m being disingenuous - I am, purposely so, to make a point.

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

We’re not that far apart I feel - and sadly this constant apologizing a la Hathaway does nothing to empower people; giving people not qualified jobs just to tick a box helps no one. It probably hinders if anything.

It’s the constant negative stereotypes of people with disabilities that people were offended by, and the portrayal of the Grand Witch is more like the straw that broke the camels back, than anything about constant apologies. Anne Hathaway chose to apologise once, just once. Nobody was complaining that she should constantly apologise or anything like it.

As for giving people not qualified jobs, that’s not the issue. The issue is that people who are qualified for jobs are often discriminated against because of their disabilities. That’s what hinders people with disabilities, the negative stereotypes that they aren’t capable of doing a job or fulfilling a role because of their disability.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That is indeed a nitpick, but no, I can’t see how mentioning a feature I find attractive in in one specific woman would be considered offensive by women who share similar features

My apologies, I read it completely wrong. I thought you were saying you didn't find her attractive for that reason.

My bad. Cheerfully retracted.

(I would have questioned your judgement too)

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As for giving people not qualified jobs, that’s not the issue. The issue is that people who are qualified for jobs are often discriminated against because of their disabilities. That’s what hinders people with disabilities, the negative stereotypes that they aren’t capable of doing a job or fulfilling a role because of their disability.

Again, we are so close to being in agreement.

But the problem lies with the promotion of positive discrimination. People are given jobs to fulfill quotas not because of their capability but because of their disability.

That's what is so dangerous about "positive" discrimination.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah td, the REAL heroes who don’t wear capes are the people who complain about having to be considerate of other people.

That’s as disingenuous as what you’re saying, before you point out I’m being disingenuous - I am, purposely so, to make a point.

No I get that. And I did leave myself open to that response.

You did, and you admitted it, gloss over the point of my post and focussed on one glib remark.

People don't HAVE to be considerate. And some people won't. But happily most people will. Encouragement of embracing victimhood and expecting your personal circumstances to be catered for is not realistic

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, we are so close to being in agreement.

But the problem lies with the promotion of positive discrimination. People are given jobs to fulfill quotas not because of their capability but because of their disability.

That's what is so dangerous about "positive" discrimination.

Dangerous to whom though? What is so wrong with giving people a shot where they wouldn’t otherwise have a shot? Why is there this thing of “Life was hard for me, now it’s your turn”. That’s what I don’t get - why is there this idea that we have to break people’s balls when they have it tough enough already? Why NOT give them a shot?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No I get that. And I did leave myself open to that response.

You did, and you admitted it, gloss over the point of my post and focussed on one glib remark.

People don't HAVE to be considerate. And some people won't. But happily most people will. Encouragement of embracing victimhood and expecting your personal circumstances to be catered for is not realistic

I got your point, and all it’s doing is like klaz earlier suggesting that people with disabilities should just take being stigmatised and treated unfairly by people who we expect should know better, like the people with disabilities are the problem, not the people who don’t think they have to be considerate of other people. It’s not embracing victimhood to say people with disabilities shouldn’t be victimised in the first place.

It’s not embracing victimhood to suggest that people with disabilities should expect their personal circumstances to be catered for. It’s the least we should be doing as a society for people with disabilities so that they have the same opportunities as everyone else to participate in society. That’s the point Anne Hathaway means when she says it’s a basic level of decency we should all be striving for. She’s not wrong. It’s not about pitying people with disabilities, it’s about enabling people with disabilities to participate equally in society with everyone else without being thought of as a burden on other people or putting other people out who don’t feel they should have to be considerate of other people.

This is a good video in which the presenter makes the point that people with disabilities don’t need pity, they just need support and it’s not a huge deal to make minor adjustments in order to cater for their needs -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ7QaCFbizo

You’re making out like anyone is expecting society to be overhauled overnight, but all anyone is really suggesting is that consideration for other people doesn’t actually cost anyone any more than a thought.

Funny that the OP is still replying to an outrage thread they started 3 days ago. Could have just saved a bunch of time and not started it?

...Ghost...

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I don't know what kind of point your trying to make here.

I'll do some mansplaining then.

You are inventing a fictional issue.

Hey, if the SJWs can do it, then so can I. One is as ridiculous as the other.

I remember going down a YouTube rabbit hole around the time of the marriage equality referendum, and there were people the making the point that if we allowed two men to get married then it was inevitable that people would end up marrying there children or marrying goats - that is what you sound like.

You're right. People would never marry animals.

Woman marries her dog after her cat husband dies.

Woman marries dolphin (there's a few of those)

Man marries dog

Man marries a fish

Not everything is a "slippery slope"

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. We will be destroyed by PC mania long before global warming has a chance. Fúck Hathaway and her faux Hollywood apology. It means nothing no matter how succinctly it was put. Didn't take long to find another stupid and empty apology to appease people.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes Andrew. My quote does stand.

Unless of course you are asserting that we still round up disabled people and as a society mock them and use them for our entertainment. (Britain's got talent may be the exception that proves the rule)

Do you believe that society is no more enlightened than the days of carnival freakshows because of a horrible incident where a man jumped over a small persons head?

That is a bizarre and warped view of society if that's honestly where you are going with this.

And your statistics? My challenge to you is to prove that even if 19% of the population was disabled, that figure should be apparent in the world of comedy? It's a stupid to assert that as it would be for me to assert that 19% of gardai should be disabled. If it should be representative in the world of comedy, why not in every other industry?

And well done for predictably ignoring how your witch would be portrayed.

You were asked ;


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

and you answered ;

Yes I do.

But now you're arguing with the WHO and the CSO and the NDA and every disability expert in the world because the prevalence of disability is much, much higher than you had previously considered.

So was your "Yes I do" answer utter nonsense?

And no, I'm not going to put myself forward as a movie designer, without spending a few weeks on researching the brief and speaking to those impacted.

AndrewJRenko

...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. We will be destroyed by PC mania long before global warming has a chance. Fúck Hathaway and her faux Hollywood apology. It means nothing no matter how succinctly it was put. Didn't take long to find another stupid and empty apology to appease people.

You don't get to speak for reasonable people.

Those poor, victimised white men, must be hard not being able to insult and undermine others at every turn, like you used to be able to do in the good old days.

AMGer

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

AMGer

AMGer wrote: »

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

Haha.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Funny that the OP is still replying to an outrage thread they started 3 days ago. Could have just saved a bunch of time and not started it?

Yeah it's mad isn't it?

Almost as if I'm using this discussion board to discuss a topic.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You were asked ;


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

and you answered ;

Yes I do.

But now you're arguing with the WHO and the CSO and the NDA and every disability expert in the world because the prevalence of disability is much, much higher than you had previously considered.

So was your "Yes I do" answer utter nonsense?

And no, I'm not going to put myself forward as a movie designer, without spending a few weeks on researching the brief and speaking to those impacted.

Jesus Andrew, tying yourself up in knots here.

I do believe that the representations of all those groups are reflective. Especially when you consider what counts as a disability by the lists you kindly provided. What makes you feel they aren't? Do you feel there's too many white men?

And you want a "brief" in order to answer what you think a witch looks like and speak to "those impacted"??? Get a grip. Who exactly would be impacted? I thought you'd be making them so nobody would be offended?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You don't get to speak for reasonable people.

Those poor, victimised white men, must be hard not being able to insult and undermine others at every turn, like you used to be able to do in the good old days.

You seem so eager to insult white men Andrew. It's coming across as racist. What is your issue with white men?

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You don't get to speak for reasonable people.

Those poor, victimised white men, must be hard not being able to insult and undermine others at every turn, like you used to be able to do in the good old days.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Thank you for that hearty laugh. What are you shíting on about with "like you used to be able to do in the good old days"? Are you assuming my age? Are you ageist as well as racist?

I do apologise if you feel undermined. However, that feeling of being undermined is internal and it's all on you. You really do come across as an angry, small minded racist.

I speak for myself and I consider myself to be a reasonable minded person. A cursory glance of this thread would suggest you are one of those easily triggered folks. Are you triggered? Do you feel you are the one being victimised here? Do you want to phone a friend?

One eyed Jack

...Ghost... wrote: »

Thank you for that hearty laugh. What are you shíting on about with "like you used to be able to do in the good old days"? Are you assuming my age? Are you ageist as well as racist?

Hold on a minute, you’re the person who brought race into it with your “war against white men” bollocks -

...Ghost... wrote: »

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

...Ghost... wrote: »

I do apologise if you feel undermined. However, that feeling of being undermined is internal and it's all on you. You really do come across as an angry, small minded racist.

Nobody asked you for an apology, but you offer one anyway, while complaining about people making fake apologies...

Your own feeling of being the victim of a war against white men is equally entirely internal and has no basis in reality, but I can understand why you also imagine yourself to be reasonable and anyone whom you disagree with is unreasonable - because for you it’s all about you and your feelings.

...Ghost... wrote: »

I speak for myself and I consider myself to be a reasonable minded person. A cursory glance of this thread would suggest you are one of those easily triggered folks. Are you triggered? Do you feel you are the one being victimised here? Do you want to phone a friend?

Easily triggered? Mate you went off on one because Anne Hathaway made an apology when she realised she had hurt people, and you’re arguing about a war against white men? Do you really feel like white men are the ones being victimised? Do want to phone a psychiatrist?

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Dangerous to whom though? What is so wrong with giving people a shot where they wouldn’t otherwise have a shot? Why is there this thing of “Life was hard for me, now it’s your turn”. That’s what I don’t get - why is there this idea that we have to break people’s balls when they have it tough enough already? Why NOT give them a shot?

People do have a shot. There are laws in place to prevent discrimination of opportunity. That doesn't mean that it still shouldn't be a merit based society. The best people for the job should get the job, regardless of their skin colour, sex or disability.

So called "positive" discrimination is still discrimination.

It’s not embracing victimhood to suggest that people with disabilities should expect their personal circumstances to be catered for. It’s the least we should be doing as a society for people with disabilities so that they have the same opportunities as everyone else to participate in society.

I absolutely agree

That’s the point Anne Hathaway means when she says it’s a basic level of decency we should all be striving for. She’s not wrong. It’s not about pitying people with disabilities, it’s about enabling people with disabilities to participate equally in society with everyone else without being thought of as a burden on other people or putting other people out who don’t feel they should have to be considerate of other people.

I still don't see what that has to do with the situation.

You may have answered this before, but how would you have portrayed the witches so as not to offend anyone?

...Ghost...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hold on a minute, you’re the person who brought race into it with your “war against white men” bollocks -








Nobody asked you for an apology, but you offer one anyway, while complaining about people making fake apologies...

Your own feeling of being the victim of a war against white men is equally entirely internal and has no basis in reality, but I can understand why you also imagine yourself to be reasonable and anyone whom you disagree with is unreasonable - because for you it’s all about you and your feelings.

Easily triggered? Mate you went off on one because Anne Hathaway made an apology when she realised she had hurt people, and you’re arguing about a war against white men? Do you really feel like white men are the ones being victimised? Do want to phone a psychiatrist?

Jack. If you have trouble seeing the sarcasm and ironic humour in my posts, open the other eye
No need to be getting triggered mate :rolleyes:

edit: I'll get back to you later. There's an angry mob of Karens outside my office

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People do have a shot. There are laws in place to prevent discrimination of opportunity. That doesn't mean that it still shouldn't be a merit based society. The best people for the job should get the job, regardless of their skin colour, sex or disability.

So called "positive" discrimination is still discrimination.

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.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You may have answered this before, but how would you have portrayed the witches so as not to offend anyone?

I did -

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.

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.

One eyed Jack

...Ghost... wrote: »

Jack. If you have trouble seeing the sarcasm and ironic humour in my posts, open the other eye
No need to be getting triggered mate :rolleyes:

edit: I'll get back to you later. There's an angry mob of Karens outside my office

Wouldn’t make any difference mate, I’d still be blind in that eye :pac:

Doesn’t affect my ability to read, though dyslexia might, but I could get from the context of what you wrote what you were aiming for, and if that was sarcasm it was a piss poor effort.

No reason you shouldn’t keep trying though, you might even get better at it.

...Ghost...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hold on a minute, you’re the person who brought race into it with your “war against white men” bollocks -

I hope Jenko reads this after he comes out of his safe space so I don't have to answer twice. While my post about white men was intended as a light jibe at certain lefties, there is more than enough proof out there that white men are being discriminated against. There is even a name for it "positive discrimination". It's really not hard to find examples and the excuse of balancing the scales is just another way of describing racism and discrimination. It's far from bollox, but you're entitled to your opinion, whether you believe it or not.

Nobody asked you for an apology, but you offer one anyway, while complaining about people making fake apologies...

Your own feeling of being the victim of a war against white men is equally entirely internal and has no basis in reality, but I can understand why you also imagine yourself to be reasonable and anyone whom you disagree with is unreasonable - because for you it’s all about you and your feelings.

Sometimes people offer apologies without being prompted by their employers. Shocking, I know. In any case, I wasn't apologising for anything I did, I was apologising for Jenko having a feeling of being undermined....quite a difference and very clear in my post.

I view and consider, not imagine myself as being reasonable. As you don't know me, outside of a joke, you have no credibility in assuming what struggles (if any) I have gone though as a white man.....and that's assuming I am a white man. I happen to enjoy a reasonable disagreement, as life would otherwise be boring if we all had the same views. I'm nether left or, or right in my leanings, so I enjoy poking a bit of light fun in both directions. That said, the left has been increasingly ridiculous in recent years, so I may have given them more attention. They play the victim, but they are usually the bullies and they just love hopping on those wagons.

Easily triggered? Mate you went off on one because Anne Hathaway made an apology when she realised she had hurt people, and you’re arguing about a war against white men?

I dislike Hollywood disingenuous bullshít. Hathaway played a part in a movie to entertain us. If anyone is in any doubt that she was "encouraged" to apologise, they need to re-evaluate themselves. I am sure she is a nice person and I like her as an actress, but I don't kid myself as to the reasons of her apology. I sincerely doubt she herself became aware of the negative comments and decided to jump in with her apology. There are numerous instances of her jumping onto twitter to apologise whenever she is seen rightly, or wrongly in a negative light. Oddly enough, the written word on in her apologies never matches up with her general comments. It's almost as if she didn't write the apology :eek:

Do you really feel like white men are the ones being victimised? Do want to phone a psychiatrist?

:pac::pac:
Brilliant.

White men and men in general are being disadvantaged because in the past, men and particularly white men held most of the cards. Most, but not all. Now, that's a whole other thread, but suffice to say that no matter what way you slice the cake, it's racist and discriminatory to exclude someone just because they don't tick the diversity box. Anyone who says otherwise has their head buried firmly up their own arse.

Tony EH

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.

This didn't happen in 'The Witches'.