Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anne Hathaway apologies for depiction of limb difference

Options
1…1011121315

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    Problem is by apologizing she is just emboldening the lunatics ...


  • Options
    #423
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Could you please be specific about what I’ve said that you’re claiming is a lie? That’s a serious allegation.
    Fascinating to see your new claim that ‘handicapped’ is now their preferred descriptor. So now you expect people to believe that you’ve had discussions about terminology with your family members about this issue and they’ve all assured you that they prefer to use ‘handicapped’.
    As we say in Dublin, yeah rih.
    And you’re right, ‘horrifically burnt’ wasn’t a great choice of words, here’s two good examples today from people promoting ‘people first’ language that you show disdain for.

    https://twitter.com/GaryJk64/status/1327604843008172035?s=20

    https://twitter.com/orlatinsley/status/1327569476380979200?s=20
    That’s the difference between you and me – when I get it wrong, I’m happy to learn from my experiences and do better next time.
    You’re absolutely determined to not show even a modicum of respect and basic decency for the many people with disabilities, their families and their advocates who have all advised not to use language like handicapped and suffering.

    Do Orla and Gary speak on behalf of all disabled people?


  • Options
    #424
    fantaiscool
    Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭fantaiscool


    If you aren't living with a limb deformity, then why do you think you know more about how people feel when they have one? Surely you should have the experience of having one before you become a moral authority on how they should react to a portrayal of someone with a limb deformity. I wouldn't imagine it's nice for them to see it.


  • Options
    #425
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Do Orla and Gary speak on behalf of all disabled people?

    I’m not great with names but there was a BBC reporter (Frank ..?) who was paralysed on assignment in Iraq, I think he was shot.

    He was giving a talk and he says he’d been left disabled - he was shouted at by a student (it was in a US uni - Berkeley I think) for using an “ableist insult”.

    The guy was put into a wheelchair - he can call himself what he ****ing wants!!!!


  • Options
    #426
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    Hector Savage wrote: »
    Problem is by apologizing she is just emboldening the lunatics ...

    The disabled?

    I mean to be fair - out of all the people who are looking for an apology, I am pretty sure some of them are disabled and they do feel like this sort of stuff does add to stigma.

    Some of them probably are 'lunatics' as well - but it sounds like you are saying everyone is..?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    km991148 wrote: »
    The disabled?

    I mean to be fair - out of all the people who are looking for an apology, I am pretty sure some of them are disabled and they do feel like this sort of stuff does add to stigma.

    Some of them probably are 'lunatics' as well - but it sounds like you are saying everyone is..?

    I think he was clearly referring to the permanently outraged lunatics, not all disabled people.


  • Options
    #428
    ArrBee
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭ArrBee


    km991148 wrote: »
    The disabled?

    I mean to be fair - out of all the people who are looking for an apology, I am pretty sure some of them are disabled and they do feel like this sort of stuff does add to stigma.

    Some of them probably are 'lunatics' as well - but it sounds like you are saying everyone is..?



    Did anyone see that episode of Happy Days when the Fonz jumped over a shark on water skis?


  • Options
    #429
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ArrBee wrote: »
    Did anyone see that episode of Happy Days when the Fonz jumped over a shark on water skis?

    I did. I found that it was highly disrespectful and portrayed all sharks in a negative light.

    Henry Winkler should apologise.


  • Options
    #430
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I did. I found that it was highly disrespectful and portrayed all sharks in a negative light.

    Henry Winkler should apologise.

    We should pull all reruns of Happy Days and ban all Ron Howard directed films* too - only way they’ll learn!! #JawsLivesMatter

    * and Joanie Loves Chachi but mainly cos it was ****e!


  • Options
    #431
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,598 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I think he was clearly referring to the permanently outraged lunatics, not all disabled people.

    In fairness, the main outrage on this thread seems to be coming from your good self, with all that effin and blinding that you're doing,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    In fairness, the main outrage on this thread seems to be coming from your good self, with all that effin and blinding that you're doing,

    As usual, there is no "fairness" in your statement.

    With regards the topic in hand, I am bemused by it absolutely. Outraged, not at all.

    I prefer to use the term "effing and causing visual impairment" so as not to offend.


  • Options
    #433
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,598 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Do Orla and Gary speak on behalf of all disabled people?

    You noticed how what they said was in line with the formal advice from disability organizations at home and abroad, right?


  • Options
    #434
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    ArrBee wrote: »
    Did anyone see that episode of Happy Days when the Fonz jumped over a shark on water skis?

    yeah big time :pac:

    It's been a while since I came to this thread. It has got beyond ridiculous tbh.


  • Options
    #435
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,598 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    As usual, there is no "fairness" in your statement.

    With regards the topic in hand, I am bemused by it absolutely. Outraged, not at alll

    Gotcha, so you're just bemused despite getting repeatedly potty mouthed with me, but anyone else who raises an issue is perpetually outraged'.

    Sure thing.


  • Options
    #436
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Gotcha, so you're just bemused despite getting repeatedly potty mouthed with me, but anyone else who raises an issue is perpetually outraged'.

    Sure thing.

    Perpetually potty mouthed? Haha amazing. I often do swear. That is true. I would rather be perpetually potty mouthed than consistently condescending and persistently patronising (to keep up the alliteration)

    My perpetual potty mouth when talking to you is born from frustration that you constantly misrepresent me and my words.

    I have explained this at length. Repeatedly.

    And to top it all off, you sign off with another misrepresentation.

    I never once claimed anyone who raises an issue is perpetually outraged. I was referring to the ones who are perpetually outraged.

    I couldn't have been clearer.


  • Options
    #437
    ArrBee
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭ArrBee


    km991148 wrote: »
    yeah big time :pac:

    It's been a while since I came to this thread. It has got beyond ridiculous tbh.

    For sure.

    There are some pretty ridiculous leaps being made in here alright!


  • Options
    #438
    km991148
    Registered Users Posts: 4,275 ✭✭✭km991148


    ArrBee wrote: »
    For sure.

    There are some pretty ridiculous leaps being made in here alright!

    For sure, for sure!

    Will we keep agreeing with each other? - will make a pleasant change on this thread :pac::pac:


  • Options
    #439
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You noticed how what they said was in line with the formal advice from disability organizations at home and abroad, right?

    And? Disability organizations can be set up by anyone. They don't speak for all disabled people anymore than I do.


  • Options
    #440
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,598 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    And? Disability organizations can be set up by anyone. They don't speak for all disabled people anymore than I do.

    Actually, it's fairly difficult to set up an organisation, keep it going for years to the stage where it is able to produce and publish guidance like this,

    but regardless of that, does anyone speak for everyone on anything? It's a ridiculous standard.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And to top it all off, you sign off with another misrepresentation.

    I never once claimed anyone who raises an issue is perpetually outraged. I was referring to the ones who are perpetually outraged.

    I couldn't have been clearer.

    You seem to think that you have some unique qualification on who/what is perpetually outraged. You're coming across as perpetually outraged to me.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Your 19% representation claim is bollocks. I clearly stated it was unreasonable to expect that, just because 19% of the population describes themselves as disabled, every industry or facility would have that proportion of representation.
    Did I or anyone suggest that every industry or facility would have that proportion of representation?


  • Options
    #441
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Actually, it's fairly difficult to set up an organisation, keep it going for years to the stage where it is able to produce and publish guidance like this,

    but regardless of that, does anyone speak for everyone on anything? It's a ridiculous standard.

    Yes, politicians can speak on behalf of their constituents as they are elected officials. The head of a trade union can speak on behalf of the members of that union.

    A group set up by some private individual/s cannot speak on behalf of a large group of people who aren't members of their organization.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You seem to think that you have some unique qualification on who/what is perpetually outraged. You're coming across as perpetually outraged to me.

    The only metric I have to judge someone who is outraged perpetually, is that you need to be perpetually outraged. Hardly unique definition nor should you need a qualification apart from honesty.

    And I have no doubt that you would claim I am perpetually outraged. It's just another misrepresentation to add to your bow.


  • Options
    #443
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,598 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    CtevenSrowder wrote: »
    Yes, politicians can speak on behalf of their constituents as they are elected officials. The head of a trade union can speak on behalf of the members of that union.

    A group set up by some private individual/s cannot speak on behalf of a large group of people who aren't members of their organization.

    No politician speaks for ALL their constituents. No union leader speaks for ALL their members.

    It's a ridiculous standard.


  • Options
    #444
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    No politician speaks for ALL their constituents. No union leader speaks for ALL their members.

    It's a ridiculous standard.

    It’s not.

    Google “union block voting”.

    You’re welcome.


  • Options
    #445
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,598 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    The only metric I have to judge someone who is outraged perpetually, is that you need to be perpetually outraged. Hardly unique definition nor should you need a qualification apart from honesty.

    And I have no doubt that you would claim I am perpetually outraged. It's just another misrepresentation to add to your bow.

    And similarly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the only metric I have to judge someone who is outraged perpetually, is that you need to be perpetually outraged - as you obviously are - starting threads because someone apologised for something, frequent foul mouthed outbursts.

    Chill.


  • Options
    #446
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,598 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Gervais08 wrote: »
    It’s not.

    Google “union block voting”.

    You’re welcome.

    I've done union block voting, mate. And I've gone back to my branch afterwards to hear the protests from those who said that I didn't speak for them.

    Google 'the difference between democratic mandate and speaking for all'.

    You're welcome.


  • Options
    #447
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    I've done union block voting, mate. And I've gone back to my branch afterwards to hear the protests from those who said that I didn't speak for them.

    Google 'the difference between democratic mandate and speaking for all'.

    You're welcome.

    I’m so far from being your mate SETI large array telescopes couldn’t find it.


  • Options
    #448
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,598 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Gervais08 wrote: »
    I’m so far from being your mate SETI large array telescopes couldn’t find it.

    Perhaps you may have missed the point there.


  • Options
    #449
    Gervais08
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Gervais08


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Perhaps you may have missed the point there.

    No, you’d like everyone to miss the many bad faith debating attempts you make - but I do not care to be called “mate” by you.


  • Options
    #450
    ShlugMurphy
    Site Banned Posts: 32 ✭ShlugMurphy


    The reality is there's far less risk to the pockets of these stars by pandering to the minorities who whinge and complain.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    CtevenSrowder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭CtevenSrowder


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    No politician speaks for ALL their constituents. No union leader speaks for ALL their members.

    It's a ridiculous standard.

    Oh i took you up wrong. We are actually in agreement. However, I would say that a group set up speaks for noone other than the members of that group. Since the groups you posted about are highly unlikely to have even nearly a majority of disabled people as group members (and are in fact likely to have a tiny minority) , I fail to see why you posted them as some sort of authority on what words are deemed acceptable to be used and what ones aren't.


Advertisement