Anne Hathaway apologies for depiction of limb difference

...Ghost...

gozunda wrote: »

How dare you presume my magical status - you muggle!

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

And I take offense to the fact you haven't called ME a muggle! Had you called me a muggle, I would also take offense to that. Let's all take offense to everything. It is the new #WayToLive


What? It's just as ridiculous as the rest of the thread

...Ghost...

...Ghost... wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

And I take offense to the fact you haven't called ME a muggle! Had you called me a muggle, I would also take offense to that. Let's all take offense to everything. It is the new #WayToLive


What? It's just as ridiculous as the rest of the thread

Greg Clarke has now had to resign (sacked) for using the words "coloured people".

For **** sake. People of colour. Coloured people. Not a **** tonne of a difference. Neither word is offensive.

People are choosing to be offended these days.

It's absolutely retarded.......oops. there's me in the gulag


Policing language and people losing their jobs when it is CLEARLY evident that no offence was intended is the world we are told to embrace by the perpetually offended *****.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Greg Clarke has now had to resign (sacked) for using the words "coloured people".

For **** sake. People of colour. Coloured people. Not a **** tonne of a difference. Neither word is offensive.

People are choosing to be offended these days.

It's absolutely retarded.......oops. there's me in the gulag


Policing language and people losing their jobs when it is CLEARLY evident that no offence was intended is the world we are told to embrace by the perpetually offended *****.

Not quite giving the full story there to be fair, and up to ten minutes ago I have no idea who this guy was so I’ve no skin in the game, but I knew there was more to that story than you were letting on, and whaddya know, there is -


Greg Clarke resigns as FA chairman amid heavy criticism over ‘archaic attitudes’


It’s almost as though you’re terrified to admit you find this shìt offensive. I’ve no trouble when I find shìt offensive, and frankly that guy seems like an even bigger asshole than I am, which is quite an achievement :pac:

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not quite giving the full story there to be fair, and up to ten minutes ago I have no idea who this guy was so I’ve no skin in the game, but I knew there was more to that story than you were letting on, and whaddya know, there is -


Greg Clarke resigns as FA chairman amid heavy criticism over ‘archaic attitudes’


It’s almost as though you’re terrified to admit you find this shìt offensive. I’ve no trouble when I find shìt offensive, and frankly that guy seems like an even bigger asshole than I am, which is quite an achievement :pac:

If a man uses the wrong words, yet you use almost identical words, you are not a racist and he is?

If a man has a view on homosexuality that you don't, he should lose his job?

Look at the rugby ruling towards inclusivity. That's acceptable?

Archaic attitudes? So I suppose we should stop all practising Muslims and Christians from holding a job. That's quite archaic.

And we have established that EVERYTHING has the potential to be offensive so you can't play that card.

Why should that man have lost his job? In detail.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

If a man uses the wrong words, yet you use almost identical words, you are not a racist and he is?

If a man has a view on homosexuality that you don't, he should lose his job?

Look at the rugby ruling towards inclusivity. That's acceptable?

Archaic attitudes? So I suppose we should stop all practising Muslims and Christians from holding a job. That's quite archaic.

And we have established that EVERYTHING has the potential to be offensive so you can't play that card.

Why should that man have lost his job? In detail.

You seem very offended by this. Have you considered just chilling out?
Some people really seem to go out of their way to get offended by things that don't affect them.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

That's not really tonnes of files that portray people with disabilities at all. And most that do, fall into the Inspiration Porn category.

AndrewJRenko

And just for anyone who fell into the trap of thinking that everything is rosy for people with disabilities in Ireland today, here's a dose of reality;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/irish-people-with-disabilities-still-locked-out-of-public-spaces-1.4404870

https://www.rte.ie/news/player/2020/1110/21863442-majority-of-wheelchair-users-have-difficulty-navigating-public-spaces-iwa-survey/

And that's just accessibility - we haven't even started to talk about employment, or housing, or transport or the cost of disability.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And just for anyone who fell into the trap of thinking that everything is rosy for people with disabilities in Ireland today, here's a dose of reality;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/irish-people-with-disabilities-still-locked-out-of-public-spaces-1.4404870

https://www.rte.ie/news/player/2020/1110/21863442-majority-of-wheelchair-users-have-difficulty-navigating-public-spaces-iwa-survey/

And that's just accessibility - we haven't even started to talk about employment, or housing, or transport or the cost of disability.

Omg. It's like having a disability means that you are at a disadvantage!!!! We all thought that wasn't the case

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem very offended by this. Have you considered just chilling out?
Some people really seem to go out of their way to get offended by things that don't affect them.



That's not really tonnes of files that portray people with disabilities at all. And most that do, fall into the Inspiration Porn category.

I'm chilled out Andrew. But I am able to have a discussion, heated or otherwise, to put forward my position. I don't ask for a brief of a list of potentially offended souls I may need to contact.

And as far as your porn link? Yeah, I won't be clicking it.

But yes, I am a little concerned that a man using language not in a pejorative way can lose his job. Context matters. If the man was being a racist, fire him. Using words that SOME find racist? No.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If a man uses the wrong words, yet you use almost identical words, you are not a racist and he is?

I didn’t say he was racist? I said he was an asshole. I’ve also admitted I’m an asshole, he’s just a bigger asshole than I am.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If a man has a view on homosexuality that you don't, he should lose his job?

Nope. I work with plenty of people who’s views I don’t share, and I don’t think they should lose their jobs. If however our employer thinks they should lose their job because they couldn’t keep their offensive views to themselves, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Look at the rugby ruling towards inclusivity. That's acceptable?

Yep, and I can understand the reasons for their decision to only allow transgender players at national level and not at international level - the little viewership of women’s rugby they have that generates revenue for the organisation from the sponsors would drop off a cliff if anyone had to watch transgender players. However - their organisation, their rules.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Archaic attitudes? So I suppose we should stop all practising Muslims and Christians from holding a job. That's quite archaic.

I don’t want to stop anyone from holding a job at all, certainly not because they have different views or are a different religion or whatever else. I do find it somewhat funny though that across continental Europe they spent years trying to ban face coverings, and now they demand that everyone cover their face, almost as though banning the veil was never about public safety or women’s rights, and was simply about exerting control over a minority group in society. But then I’m a cynic.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And we have established that EVERYTHING has the potential to be offensive so you can't play that card.

Why should that man have lost his job? In detail.

I had no intention of playing that card, because we already did establish that everything has the potential to be offensive to someone else.

This guy should lose his job as head of the FA because he doesn’t appear to have given any consideration whatsoever as to how given his position the shìt he had already been allowed get away with without being pulled up on it, and it was a whole culmination of the things he had gotten away with saying for years, and people finally had enough of his shìt! It was the straw that broke the camels back, so he chose to resign.

Do you reckon he should have kept his job as the head of the FA while referring to “coloured footballers”, saying being gay is a “lifestyle choice” and suggesting that a women’s coach told him that the lack of women’s goalkeepers was due to girls not liking the ball being kicked at them? He’s obviously clueless about women’s football if he didn’t even bother to contradict what he was apparently told by that women’s coach for the bullshìt that it is, let alone that he would actually perpetuate such a stupid stereotype that does nothing for women’s football. Is that really who anyone wants as the head of the Football Association? Someone who consistently sets the image of the sport back to British Colonial times?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Omg. It's like having a disability means that you are at a disadvantage!!!! We all thought that wasn't the case

You didn't seem to mention anything about it earlier, when you were telling us how good things were for people with disabilities? Remember when you were pretending that one in five comedians on TV has a disability?

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm chilled out Andrew. But I am able to have a discussion, heated or otherwise, to put forward my position. I don't ask for a brief of a list of potentially offended souls I may need to contact.
.

Thanks for the reminder. I never got back to your point about the design brief. Do you know anything about design processes? Or about the importance of user research in design?

Try watching something like RTE's Big Life Fix and then we can start building your understanding about what design is and how it works.

But on the more general point, you seem really triggered when other people stand up for themselves. Is there some problem deep in your past that you'd like to share maybe?

Deleted User wrote: »

And as far as your porn link? Yeah, I won't be clicking it.

It's not a porn link. It's an article from a reputable news outlet.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You didn't seem to mention anything about it earlier, when you were telling us how good things were for people with disabilities? Remember when you were pretending that one in five comedians on TV has a disability?



Thanks for the reminder. I never got back to your point about the design brief. Do you know anything about design processes? Or about the importance of user research in design?

Try watching something like RTE's Big Life Fix and then we can start building your understanding about what design is and how it works.

But on the more general point, you seem really triggered when other people stand up for themselves. Is there some problem deep in your past that you'd like to share maybe?


It's not a porn link. It's an article from a reputable news outlet.

Ok Andrew.

I tried, and I really did, not to call you a disingenuous tit. And I will continue to try not to, despite how hard you make it.

My point about comedians not being 19% of all comedians stands. It's a ****ing ridiculous metric you expect.

I do understand how film designers work. I engage with them frequently. Not Hollywood designers I stress. But film designers. They don't need to engage with people effected by portrayals of supernatural beings. Because the don't exist.

I won't watch your ****ty link. Not because I don't want to, I just genuinely believe from your posting history and your demeanor, I would be wasting my time.

And yes, I did share something that happened in my past that has affected me. It's got absolutely nothing to do with anyone standing up for themselves. I encourage that.

And I don't give you enough credit to click on a link just on your say-so.

I've answered your questions.

So tell me andrew.;

How many disabled comedians do you want on your telly?
Do you believe there are too many white male comedians?

Gervais08

Clarke is a tit - end of, but can someone explain that when he said gay people make a “lifestyle choice” he is rightly called out for it - yet when trans activists describe gay people as “identifying” as gay we are expected to pander to the nutjobs???

Tony EH

Gervais08 wrote: »

Clarke is a tit - end of, but can someone explain that when he said gay people make a “lifestyle choice” he is rightly called out for it - yet when trans activists describe gay people as “identifying” as gay we are expected to pander to the nutjobs???

I don't think he meant being gay was a "Lifestyle choice". What he said was...

"The real issue is once you run out in front of 60,000 people and you decided on Monday that you wanted to disclose your sexuality - and I would never pressure anybody to disclose their sexuality - what I would want to do is to know that anybody who runs out onto the pitch and says, 'I'm gay. I'm proud of it and I'm happy. It's a life choice, and I've made it because my life is a better place', I'd like to believe and I do believe they would have the support of their mates in the changing room,"

His meaning here appears to be that declaring your gay is a lifestyle choice. Not being gay itself. In addition, he's saying that it's a relatively good thing for the person to make that declaration and that a person's team mates should be supportive.

Also, with regards to "coloured", the statement in which it was made is thus...

"If I look at what happens to high-profile female footballers, to high-profile coloured footballers, and the abuse they take on social media... social media is a free-for-all."

...which is offering support to female and "coloured footballers", because they are targets of abuse on the likes to Twitter.


I don't believe that Clarke is racist or homophobic, but I guess context doesn't matter either to people who want to see heads roll because an "archaic term" is used. :rolleyes:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12129402/greg-clarke-resigns-as-fa-chairman-after-apologising-for-saying-coloured-footballers

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You didn't seem to mention anything about it earlier, when you were telling us how good things were for people with disabilities? Remember when you were pretending that one in five comedians on TV has a disability?

I'm still at a loss as to why anyone would deliberately and blatantly lie about someone else's position like you have done here.

From reading your paragraph, you would swear I was some sort of evil monster (perfectly formed though so as not to offend).

I have more than a few handicapped people in my family. And yes, I am allowed say that because I m specifically referring to my family members who use that word to describe their afflictions. I am more than aware that disability is no cake-walk.

I didn't mention that having a disability was a disadvantage before? I may not have outright said it because it is implied in its very name. And yes I did say that things were better than they were before for disabled people and we are living in much more enlightened times than yesteryear, where things were much much worse.

I never once suggested, never mind pretended, that 19% of comedians were disabled, but on further reflection, if you do count mental afflictions into it, I could hazard a guess that perhaps more than one in five have a form of personality disorder. Maybe undiagnosed. You never know. It's not beyond the realm of possibility but definitely not one I would definitively stand behind.

Again, you mentioned women, Asians and black people too. Are you still implying they are underrepresented?

You ask a lot of questions and then misrepresent the answers. Yet you don't fully answer any questions yourself.

I find that extremely dishonest, manipulative and cowardly. If you can't get your point across, you resort to making stuff up.

Gervais08

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't think he meant being gay was a "Lifestyle choice". What he said was...

"The real issue is once you run out in front of 60,000 people and you decided on Monday that you wanted to disclose your sexuality - and I would never pressure anybody to disclose their sexuality - what I would want to do is to know that anybody who runs out onto the pitch and says, 'I'm gay. I'm proud of it and I'm happy. It's a life choice, and I've made it because my life is a better place', I'd like to believe and I do believe they would have the support of their mates in the changing room,"

His meaning here appears to be that declaring your gay is a lifestyle choice. Not being gay itself. In addition, he's saying that it's a relatively good thing for the person to make that declaration and that a person's team mates should be supportive.

Also, with regards to "coloured", the statement in which it was made is thus...

"If I look at what happens to high-profile female footballers, to high-profile coloured footballers, and the abuse they take on social media... social media is a free-for-all."

...which is offering support to female and "coloured footballers", because they are targets of abuse on the likes to Twitter.


I don't believe that Clarke is racist or homophobic, but I guess context doesn't matter either to people who want to see heads roll because an "archaic term" is used. :rolleyes:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12129402/greg-clarke-resigns-as-fa-chairman-after-apologising-for-saying-coloured-footballers

Thank you for that!!! Agreed - no he’s not homophobic I’d say, if anything very supporting of our gay brothers and sisters in footy.

Gervais08

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm still at a loss as to why anyone would deliberately and blatantly lie about someone else's position like you have done here.

From reading your paragraph, you would swear I was some sort of evil monster (perfectly formed though so as not to offend).

I have more than a few handicapped people in my family. And yes, I am allowed say that because I m specifically referring to my family members who use that word to describe their afflictions. I am more than aware that disability is no cake-walk.

I didn't mention that having a disability was a disadvantage before? I may not have outright said it because it is implied in its very name. And yes I did say that things were better than they were before for disabled people and we are living in much more enlightened times than yesteryear, where things were much much worse.

I never once suggested, never mind pretended, that 19% of comedians were disabled, but on further reflection, if you do count mental afflictions into it, I could hazard a guess that perhaps more than one in five have a form of personality disorder. Maybe undiagnosed. You never know. It's not beyond the realm of possibility but definitely not one I would definitively stand behind.

Again, you mentioned women, Asians and black people too. Are you still implying they are underrepresented?

You ask a lot of questions and then misrepresent the answers. Yet you don't fully answer any questions yourself.

I find that extremely dishonest, manipulative and cowardly. If you can't get your point across, you resort to making stuff up.

You’re being generous assuming that poster HAS a point to make!!

One eyed Jack

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't believe that Clarke is racist or homophobic, but I guess context doesn't matter either to people who want to see heads roll because an "archaic term" is used. :rolleyes:

Context does matter, that’s why I went looking for context after the dunne posted because I thought it would be highly unusual that someone was sacked for simply using the term “coloured people” as the dunne was making out.

Turns out there was more context to what he said, and I’m sure you can appreciate the fact that there were numerous previous instances he’d displayed an archaic attitude, which the FA has been striving to distance itself from in the last couple of years. From your own link, Sanjay Bhandari nailed it -


He told Sky Sports News: "We are not just talking about anybody here, we are talking about the leader of our national game on a really major strategic issue for the FA, which is driving greater diversity and inclusion, making everyone feel they belong in the game.

"These were archaic attitudes which were really revealing themselves in comment after comment - a well-briefed chair or CEO would know exactly how to navigate that.

"It is not as if this is the first time, there have been previous incidents - like referring to institutional racism as 'fluff'.

"What it shows is there is an attitude underlying which is really not the right attitude to be leading the English game."


If we go back to the idea of “the best candidate for the job”, Graham Clarke is just not the best candidate for the job. This isn’t about anyone taking offence for the sake of it because they want to see heads roll, they just don’t think someone who constantly displays such archaic attitudes towards other people is the best representative to be the head of an organisation who is supposed to lead the development of the sport. The other option is to say nothing and just allow him to continue representing everything that’s wrong with the sport, while everyone else just has to suck it up or be told they’re just being too sensitive and he doesn’t mean it, making allowances and excuses for him.

If someone says they didn’t mean something, does that mean they’re let off the hook? All they have to do is accuse everyone else of being over sensitive. I can see how that might silence anyone who are terrified of being accused of being offended, but it’s not them who are in the wrong if they point out that what the person has done or said is offensive to them. That’s how archaic attitudes tend to fester, when people are afraid to say they’re offended and are just expected to suck it up.

Tony EH

Bullshit.

If he'd used terms like "darkies" or "niggers", I'd be all for his sacking resignation. But he used the same term as the NAACP use, even if it is "archaic".

Into the bargain he was defending black players and women because they received abuse online.

It's utterly ridiculous to try and justify what's happened to him over this.

One eyed Jack

Tony EH wrote: »

Bullshit.

Ahh come on Tony, you have to laugh at the irony of a guy hired to promote diversity in football who only made it worse, and people are complaining because he wasn’t permitted to continue to be a liability for his employer while claiming that the standard should be “best person for the job”. In this case it sure as hell isn’t Greg Clarke.


And it wasn’t just this incident, it was a culmination of embarrassing gaffes for someone in his position in the organisation he was in. Context, as you said yourself. It’s not as though he was some low paid code monkey.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm still at a loss as to why anyone would deliberately and blatantly lie about someone else's position like you have done here.

From reading your paragraph, you would swear I was some sort of evil monster (perfectly formed though so as not to offend).

I have more than a few handicapped people in my family. And yes, I am allowed say that because I m specifically referring to my family members who use that word to describe their afflictions. I am more than aware that disability is no cake-walk.

Having family members that use that term does NOT give you a free pass to use that term with anyone other than those family members. Regardless of what your family members feel, it is not generally acceptable to use that term in polite company. It is a throwback to a different era, with all kinds of negative connotations. I've presented no end of sources from Ireland and the UK advising you not to use it, and you are deliberately choosing to use it.

And then you act all offended about how you're not an evil monster?

Deleted User wrote: »

I never once suggested, never mind pretended, that 19% of comedians were disabled,

Except that you did.

I 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".

Deleted User wrote: »

but on further reflection, if you do count mental afflictions into it, I could hazard a guess that perhaps more than one in five have a form of personality disorder. Maybe undiagnosed. You never know. It's not beyond the realm of possibility but definitely not one I would definitively stand behind.

You don't get to diagnose personality disorders unless you are a psychiatrist working with the people concerned in a clinical scenario.

Deleted User wrote: »

My point about comedians not being 19% of all comedians stands. It's a ****ing ridiculous metric you expect.

Why is it ridiculous? Why would you not expect comedians to be broadly representative of the general population in terms of disability?

Deleted User wrote: »

I do understand how film designers work. I engage with them frequently. Not Hollywood designers I stress. But film designers. They don't need to engage with people effected by portrayals of supernatural beings. Because the don't exist.

Interesting, so Alex Brooker doesn't exist.
https://twitter.com/mattgraveling/status/1324017011635216390
Not the most solid of your arguments, unless you're suggesting that video is a deepfake.

Deleted User wrote: »

I won't watch your ****ty link. Not because I don't want to, I just genuinely believe from your posting history and your demeanor, I would be wasting my time.

And yes, I did share something that happened in my past that has affected me. It's got absolutely nothing to do with anyone standing up for themselves. I encourage that.

And I don't give you enough credit to click on a link just on your say-so.

Oh, let's be honest, please. You won't click on the link because you know it will challenge your views, no more and no less.

But the irony of you getting deeply offended about other people getting deeply offended seems to have gone way over your head.

Tony EH wrote: »

Bullshit.

If he'd used terms like "darkies" or "niggers", I'd be all for his sacking resignation. But he used the same term as the NAACP use, even if it is "archaic".

Into the bargain he was defending black players and women because they received abuse online.

It's utterly ridiculous to try and justify what's happened to him over this.

The NAACP is in the States. The FA is in the UK. Language and terminology is different in different cultures.

As for 'defending', that sounds an awful lot like 'some of my best friends are black/gay/Muslim/whatever'.

Tony EH

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The NAACP is in the States. The FA is in the UK. Language and terminology is different in different cultures.

Nonsense.

"Colored people" and "People of color" are BOTH Americanisms and the pretend/oversensitivity comes from there as well. It has fuck all to do with Britain, except as an imported commodity in recent times.

The faux outrage over that particular terminology is the most egregious kind of word policing and it's especially galling when an entire organisation dedicated to the "advancement" of "colored people" wears that very same terminology as its banner.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

As for 'defending', that sounds an awful lot like 'some of my best friends are black/gay/Muslim/whatever'.

In your head maybe.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Having family members that use that term does NOT give you a free pass to use that term with anyone other than those family members. Regardless of what your family members feel, it is not generally acceptable to use that term in polite company. It is a throwback to a different era, with all kinds of negative connotations. I've presented no end of sources from Ireland and the UK advising you not to use it, and you are deliberately choosing to use it.

And then you act all offended about how you're not an evil monster?


Except that you did.

I 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".


You don't get to diagnose personality disorders unless you are a psychiatrist working with the people concerned in a clinical scenario.


Why is it ridiculous? Why would you not expect comedians to be broadly representative of the general population in terms of disability?


Interesting, so Alex Brooker doesn't exist.
https://twitter.com/mattgraveling/status/1324017011635216390
Not the most solid of your arguments, unless you're suggesting that video is a deepfake.


Oh, let's be honest, please. You won't click on the link because you know it will challenge your views, no more and no less.

But the irony of you getting deeply offended about other people getting deeply offended seems to have gone way over your head.



The NAACP is in the States. The FA is in the UK. Language and terminology is different in different cultures.

As for 'defending', that sounds an awful lot like 'some of my best friends are black/gay/Muslim/whatever'.

Well Andrew, you have finally discarded any facade you had of being a person willing to engage in actual conversation.

You have presented me with "sources" as to what words I can use? With all due *respect.... **** off.

Handicapped may offend some people, but I'm not addressing them. I specifically was referring to my family who reference their afflictions as their handicap.

Are you telling me they can't refer to their disability as that?

And yeah, tell me more about how disability should be representative in comedy if you can't define it because you aren't a practitioner? **** off.

What is your obsession that we should have disabled comedians? Do you honestly do it with ANY other profession?

Disabled comedians are well represented.

And as for your ****ty comment about "some of my best friends are..."

I do have friends who are "p.o.c." (I'd never refer to them as that), HAD a sibling who was gay, am the father of a "child of colour" and the uncle of a downs syndrome child.

So with all due respect (which is none, as I do not respect you or your position) **** you if you think I am coming from any other position other than give my opinion.

You don't get to diagnose personality disorders unless you are a psychiatrist working with the people concerned in a clinical scenario.

Yet you get to tell people what is acceptable vernacular.

You are a bully.

Two bald men fighting over a comb here at this stage.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Two bald men fighting over a comb here at this stage.

That's offensive to bald people

Wibbs

They're the Follically Challenged. You monster.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

They're the Follically Challenged. You monster.

Dictionary defines monster as: a large, ugly, and frightening imaginary creature

That's sizeist, body shaming, and assuming my existence.

Check your privilege.

TomTomTim

Here's some more madness to add to the pot

https://twitter.com/assassinscreed/status/1325921529679458308

CtevenSrowder

TomTomTim wrote: »

Here's some more madness to add to the pot

https://twitter.com/assassinscreed/status/1325921529679458308

Changed literally because of one person!

TomTomTim

TomTomTim wrote: »

Here's some more madness to add to the pot

https://twitter.com/assassinscreed/status/1325921529679458308

It's this ****ery that makes me sad.

It makes zero sense.

colm_mcm

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Changed literally because of one person!

Don’t assume their species, thanks.