Anne Hathaway apologies for depiction of limb difference

AndrewJRenko

Meant To Say wrote: »

One the biggest shows of all time, Family Guy, has a handicapped central character, Joe Swanson.

The 1970s called for you, they want their offensive terminology back.

JimmyVik

Wrong thread

cdeb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The 1970s called for you, they want their offensive terminology back.

Joe Swanson has called himself handicapped in the shows btw. Nobody cares. I think you're trying to be offended on behalf of someone else again.

AndrewJRenko

Meant To Say wrote: »

Try and refute my point first

The point that a cartoon character in a US cartoon show is significant in terms of representation of people with disabilities in UK comedy?

AndrewJRenko

cdeb wrote: »

Joe Swanson has called himself handicapped in the shows btw. Nobody cares. I think you're trying to be offended on behalf of someone else again.

Joe isn't a real person, just ICYMI.

cdeb

Meant To Say wrote: »

And Joe is treated like joke, the same as every other character. But I suppose that's the wrong type of equality.

Yup. Equality is highlighting everyone's colour and making a big deal out of counting everyone's colour and categorising people as "black", "white", Asian", etc, in a work environment.

Oh no wait, that's actually racism.

My bad.

cdeb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Joe isn't a real person, just ICYMI.

Well duh.

My point is if a handicapped character refers to themselves as handicapped without any furore over the term for the last 20 years, you've no right to come along and take offence on their behalf over it.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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?

Yes I do.

Please tell me how women and black or Asian people don't get their fair chances to be seen.

I swear, listening to some comments on here, you would swear that rather than living in one of the most progressive countries in the world, we were some sort of white supremacists patriarchy that holds women back.

Disabled people are rarely shown in a negative context but do feature on television and trans people are such a tiny percentage of the populations it would be massively overrepresenting them to shoehorn them in for the sake of inclusivity.

AndrewJRenko

cdeb wrote: »

Well duh.

My point is if a handicapped character refers to themselves as handicapped without any furore over the term for the last 20 years, you've no right to come along and take offence on their behalf over it.

You seem to be missing the point that he's not a real person - he is a cartoon character, and anything that he says is written by script writers - they are not the versions of people with disabilities.

I'm not taking offence on anyone's behalf. I'm pointing out that the disability sector in the USA has spent quite some time explaining how 'handicap' is not appropriate terminology;

https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/acc/acc02.htm
http://www.aucd.org/docs/add/sa_summits/Language%20Doc.pdf

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/69361/why-did-disabled-replace-handicapped-preferred-term
Or you can take the Irish government view;
http://nda.ie/Publications/Attitudes/Appropriate-Terms-to-Use-about-Disability/

Or the UK government view;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/inclusive-language-words-to-use-and-avoid-when-writing-about-disability

Take your pick.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I do.

Please tell me how women and black or Asian people don't get their fair chances to be seen.

I swear, listening to some comments on here, you would swear that rather than living in one of the most progressive countries in the world, we were some sort of white supremacists patriarchy that holds women back.

Disabled people are rarely shown in a negative context but do feature on television and trans people are such a tiny percentage of the populations it would be massively overrepresenting them to shoehorn them in for the sake of inclusivity.

From: https://www.scope.org.uk/media/disability-facts-figures/

There are 14.1 million disabled people in the UK.

8% of children are disabled
19% of working age adults are disabled
44% of pension age adults are disabled

Do you reckon that 19% of comedians that you see on TV are disabled?

It's not really that tiny, is it?

cdeb

And yet there's no uproar (including from handicapped people) about Swanson calling himself handicapped. I think that's significant as it indicates that all those links are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist anywhere near as much as some people think it does.

Handicapped and disabled both mean the exact same thing, and it's daft to say one is offensive and the other isn't.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

haha.. technically, witchcraft does exist since the formulas and ritual exist, and are practiced. It's the same with any religion. And people call themselves witches, so witches exist. It doesn't matter that their rituals are useless, the belief is there. so technically it does exist, and has for most of human history.

In any case, it doesn't matter.

I can cut my pizza box into strange little shapes and mutter an incantation to try and stop it raining, and call it a "craft".

It would make it any more real though.

Gervais08

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point that he's not a real person - he is a cartoon character, and anything that he says is written by script writers - they are not the versions of people with disabilities.

I'm not taking offence on anyone's behalf. I'm pointing out that the disability sector in the USA has spent quite some time explaining how 'handicap' is not appropriate terminology;

https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/acc/acc02.htm
http://www.aucd.org/docs/add/sa_summits/Language%20Doc.pdf

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/69361/why-did-disabled-replace-handicapped-preferred-term
Or you can take the Irish government view;
http://nda.ie/Publications/Attitudes/Appropriate-Terms-to-Use-about-Disability/

Or the UK government view;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/inclusive-language-words-to-use-and-avoid-when-writing-about-disability

Take your pick.

I have a bad hip. It limits my ability to do certain things.

It’s a handicap. What’s the issue ?

cdeb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you reckon that 19% of comedians that you see on TV are disabled?

Why should they be?

Who cares?

BTW - 19% of adults disabled? If you have a look around real life, you'll see that's either (a) not true or (b) has such a wide definition of "disabled" as to render it irrelevant.

Tony EH

Gervais08 wrote: »

Mr Spoon from Button Moon now identifies as a non-binary fork.

That would be a spork then?

Tony EH

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Joe isn't a real person, just ICYMI.

Neither is Anne Hathaway's witch.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

I can cut my pizza box into strange little shapes and mutter an incantation to try and stop it raining, and call it a "craft".

It would make it any more real though.

And the same could be said with regards to "communion" in Christianity. And yet, it's a religion with a sizable following. There's little difference between the rituals in religion and the rituals within witchcraft/Sorcery.

It's not about what is "real". You used the phrase technically earlier. Well, technically, they do exist.. being able to prove that what they believe in is true isn't required, otherwise we could dismiss all manner of beliefs (like the US fascination in the existence of Angels)

Gervais08

Tony EH wrote: »

That would be a spork then?

Did you just assume his cutlery ??? 😉

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

From: https://www.scope.org.uk/media/disability-facts-figures/

Do you reckon that 19% of comedians that you see on TV are disabled?

It's not really that tiny, is it?

Hang on wait a minute....

Is that how you do your little inclusivity sums?

Ok so I assume you expect disabled people to be 19%of the prison population, 19% of all rapists, 19%of all academy award winners, 19% of teachers etc....

Thats not how it works. Especially on television.

If enough people want to see something, the networks will make it and continue it until people don't want to see it.

Unfortunately for you, there is not much of a clamouring for a comedy series about black Muslim transgender feminist in a wheelchair who goes about checking everyone's privilege.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately for you, there is not much of a clamouring for a comedy series about black Muslim transgender feminist in a wheelchair who goes about checking everyone's privilege.

Yup.. Batwoman missed it's chance to represent that.. not to worry, given time something like that will happen. Can't speak for it's ratings though.

One eyed Jack

Gervais08 wrote: »

I have a bad hip. It limits my ability to do certain things.

It’s a handicap. What’s the issue ?

The issue for a lot of people is that being referred to as handicapped is humiliating.

Nobody is suggesting you can’t refer to yourself as handicapped, they’re making the point that other people have the right to point out that they’d rather not be referred to as handicapped, because it’s humiliating.

Honestly the amount of disingenuous shìte in this thread is quite something. All that happened is a handful of people expressed their opinions that they found the portrayal of the Grand Witch offensive due to the idea that it perpetuates the stigma against people with disabilities.

Anne Hathaway saw where they were coming from and issued an apology for the way the Grand Witch was portrayed which hurt some people, both adults and children. It was her choice to do so and she explained it was simply based upon the idea of not hurting others is a basic level of human decency -


I have recently learned that many people with limb differences, especially children, are in pain because of the portrayal of the Grand High Witch in The Witches.

Let me begin by saying I do my best to be sensitive to the feelings and experiences of others not out of some scrambling PC fear, but because not hurting others seems like a basic level of decency we should all be striving for. As someone who really believes in inclusivity and really, really detests cruelty, I owe you all an apology for the pain caused. I am sorry. I did not connect limb difference with the GHW when the look of the character was brought to me; if I had, I assure you this never would have happened.

I particularly want to say I’m sorry to kids with limb differences: now that I know better I promise I’ll do better. And I owe a special apology to everyone who loves you as fiercely as I love my own kids: I’m sorry I let your family down.


And yet there are people here getting their knickers in a bunch because she showed a basic level of human decency.

Wokeception :pac:

Nermal

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

From: https://www.scope.org.uk/media/disability-facts-figures/

Do you reckon that 19% of comedians that you see on TV are disabled?

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

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

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

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

Since we're using UK stats:

The Equality Act 2010 sets out when someone is considered to be disabled and protected from discrimination. The definition is quite wide - so check it even if you don’t think you’re disabled. For example, you might be covered if you have a learning difficulty, dyslexia or autism

Worth a look. It really does include a wide variety of situations as being a disability.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The issue for a lot of people is that being referred to as handicapped is humiliating.

Nobody is suggesting you can’t refer to yourself as handicapped, they’re making the point that other people have the right to point out that they’d rather not be referred to as handicapped, because it’s humiliating.

Honestly the amount of disingenuous shìte in this thread is quite something. All that happened is a handful of people expressed their opinions that they found the portrayal of the Grand Witch offensive due to the idea that it perpetuates the stigma against people with disabilities.

Anne Hathaway saw where they were coming from and issued an apology for the way the Grand Witch was portrayed which hurt some people, both adults and children. It was her choice to do so and she explained it was simply based upon the idea of not hurting others is a basic level of human decency -


I have recently learned that many people with limb differences, especially children, are in pain because of the portrayal of the Grand High Witch in The Witches.

Let me begin by saying I do my best to be sensitive to the feelings and experiences of others not out of some scrambling PC fear, but because not hurting others seems like a basic level of decency we should all be striving for. As someone who really believes in inclusivity and really, really detests cruelty, I owe you all an apology for the pain caused. I am sorry. I did not connect limb difference with the GHW when the look of the character was brought to me; if I had, I assure you this never would have happened.

I particularly want to say I’m sorry to kids with limb differences: now that I know better I promise I’ll do better. And I owe a special apology to everyone who loves you as fiercely as I love my own kids: I’m sorry I let your family down.


And yet there are people here getting their knickers in a bunch because she showed a basic level of human decency.

Wokeception :pac:

Are you of the opinion that if alopecia sufferers come forward and say they are offended due to the witches being bald, it would be common decency to make a statement and say that they should have had hair?

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

And the same could be said with regards to "communion" in Christianity. And yet, it's a religion with a sizable following. There's little difference between the rituals in religion and the rituals within witchcraft/Sorcery.

It can. Religious "communion" is baloney, irrespective of the size of the following. So is confirmation and any other rite you'd care to mention.

They don't actually do anything at all and it's just meaningless ceremony.

There's nothing "real" about them in that they are mystical passages that allow "contact" with a deity. Because that doesn't happen.

They're silly, ceremonial, actions. But they don't do anything they claim to do in real terms.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not about what is "real". You used the phrase technically earlier. Well, technically, they do exist.. being able to prove that what they believe in is true isn't required, otherwise we could dismiss all manner of beliefs (like the US fascination in the existence of Angels)

And technically it still stands. Witches are not real, in that what they claim to be and be able to do is bunkum. The deluded person who thinks they're a "witch" is real enough. But what they claim to be and be able to achieve isn't.

I know a Wiccan once. Nice kid, but an absolute space case. She thought she could do all sorts of stuff.

It was, of course, all complete bollocks. She was real. Her witchcraft wasn't.

Getting back to the point, witches are made up nonsense, especially so in Roald Dahl's story, where they are deliberately portrayed as monstrous to scare little kids.

It's a bizarre thing to look to be upset about.

cdeb

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Honestly the amount of disingenuous shìte in this thread is quite something. All that happened is a handful of people expressed their opinions that they found the portrayal of the Grand Witch offensive due to the idea that it perpetuates the stigma against people with disabilities.

Anne Hathaway saw where they were coming from and issued an apology for the way the Grand Witch was portrayed which hurt some people, both adults and children. It was her choice to do so and she explained it was simply based upon the idea of not hurting others is a basic level of human decency -

Ah, One Eyed Jack. Boards' bastion of wokeness. Not surprising your view is a blanket dismissal of the whole thread as "disingenuous ****e". Never mind the arguments made, the comparisons with North Korean methods of thought control, and other such actual points being made. Nope, it's all "disingenuous ****e" for no stated reason whatsoever.

Right you are so.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

It's a bizarre thing to look to be upset about.

Completely agree. I'll leave it at that. (although I disagree about the rest, but it's a circular argument)

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you of the opinion that if alopecia sufferers come forward and say they are offended due to the witches being bald, it would be common decency to make a statement and say that they should have had hair?

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

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

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

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

Nermal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

All that happened is a handful of people expressed their opinions that they found the portrayal of the Grand Witch offensive due to the idea that it perpetuates the stigma against people with disabilities.

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

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

One eyed Jack

cdeb wrote: »

Ah, One Eyed Jack. Boards' bastion of wokeness. Not surprising your view is a blanket dismissal of the whole thread as "disingenuous ****e". Never mind the arguments made, the comparisons with North Korean methods of thought control, and other such actual points being made. Nope, it's all "disingenuous ****e" for no stated reason whatsoever.

Right you are so.

You have to be having a fcuking laugh mate! :pac:

There was no blanket dismissal of the whole thread in observing that there was some amount of disingenuous shìte. I never said it was ALL disingenuous shìte.

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