AndrewJRenko wrote: » Have any of the big lads with the little jokes been at the heart of major exhibitions at UK museums?https://twitter.com/TheSineadBurke/status/1129486417787334656?s=19 Nah, didn't think so.
Candie wrote: » He didn't pole vault. She didn't call it a hate crime. She didn't go to the papers about it. She has a disability. They did it to her because of that disability.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Posting that is only going to give those people more ammo for jokes to be honest. A 20 ft high poster....body beautiful? It is like a red rag to a bull.
Hego Damask wrote: » So what ?, this is a condescending nonsense PC gesture, it means nothing, it's embarrassing almost like affirmative action. Reminds me of the 300KG woman on the cover of cosmopolitan, and we were told that was "beauty" ... yeah sure... All men are gonna prefer looking at a 6ft Swedish blond with long tanned legs - believe me!
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I would not agree they did it because she had a disability - they did it because they thought it would be funny (see my comments about media perception)
gormdubhgorm wrote: » The young lads did not go around targeting dwarfs/little people that day in question.
Hego Damask wrote: » So again and again as kept coming back to on this thread, if it were a "normal" height person that had a lad jump over them and then said " he then walked past me again with a frightening grin. I was furious and scared." Would that be a hate crime ?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So you recognise that unwelcome leapfrogging is not a problem for most people, and then you say "I would not agree they did it because she had a disability". Do you not see the glaring contradiction here? They wouldn't have done it if she didn't have that particular form of disability. They literally did it because she has that particular disability.
Ah, I get it now - you want to go back to the 60s and 70s where people with disabilities are locked away in institutions and not talked about because they make you feel uncomfortable.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » No you are missing the nuance. They were able to leapfrog her because she had a disability. But the reason they did it was not because she had a disability - it was because they thought it would be funny and they were just cruel and ignorant.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » As a person with an obvious physical disability, I feel I am more qualified to talk about this than most. So trying to make those assumptions about me are way off the mark (and therefore very funny to me - it also shows how dangerous assumptions are). Also it proves to me that in your rush for 'outrage' you did not read my post about problems of media perception. I have seen/heard it all at this point. And these days it has got to the stage when other people try and get offended on my behalf, based on thier own viewpoint as able bodied people - and therefore what society now decrees is offensive and when it is not. It leads to tokenism and an unintended condescending attitude, by those who are well intentioned. It is almost like the white man's guilt when discussing slavery in Africa etc. Yet it is the white people that are ones who decide what people are offended by more often than not. A journalist from a reputable paper to use terms such as 'hate crime' (way out of proportion) does everyone a dis-service (both able-bodied and disabled alike) for the hyperbolic levels of outrage. Hate crime me árse!
AndrewJRenko wrote: If I sexually exploit a person with intellectual disability by taking advantage of their reduced capability, it's not because I'm a horny bastad, it's because of their disability. If I dip into the wallet of a person with sight loss, it's not because I'm a greedy bastad, it's because of their disability. All these are hate crimes, that exploit the disability of the victim, as was the assault on Sinead. They're also all offences of varying degrees of seriousness, which is another question - but they're still hate crimes.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » If I sexually exploit a person with intellectual disability by taking advantage of their reduced capability, it's not because I'm a horny bastad, it's because of their disability. If I dip into the wallet of a person with sight loss, it's not because I'm a greedy bastad, it's because of their disability. All these are hate crimes,
sabat wrote: »
AndrewJRenko wrote: » If I sexually exploit a person with intellectual disability by taking advantage of their reduced capability, it's not because I'm a horny bastad, it's because of their disability. If I dip into the wallet of a person with sight loss, it's not because I'm a greedy bastad, it's because of their disability. All these are hate crimes, that exploit the disability of the victim, as was the assault on Sinead. They're also all offences of varying degrees of seriousness, which is another question - but they're still hate crimes.
sabat wrote: » Yes thank god we've progressed from the dark ages when people of different body types were put up on stage for the delectation of the public and profiteering of the shows' organisers.
stefanovich wrote: » Apart from the freakshow posters of course, the image above is the only one a take issue with. She is morbidly obese. This is a dangerous medical condition and shouldn't be encouraged.
sabat wrote: » The point I was making is that the fashion industry's new-found obsession with putting people with unusual body types front and centre is more about putting them on display for the public to have a gawp and create a publicity stir resulting ultimately in increased profits than any genuine sense of progressiveness.
I made no assumption about your ability or disability. I simply called out the attitude you displayed in your comments - that Sinead should stay quiet and keep her head down and avoid publicity because you're uncomfortable about her disability. Your discomfort is your problem, not hers and not mine.
If there is a problem with the 'jokes', then call out the jokers - don't blame those who are going ahead with living the lives they choose as 'giving more ammo'.
Deleted User wrote: » You are really stretching here. It's. It a hate crime to steal from a blind person. It's simply a crime. It's not a hate crime to sexually exploit a person with an intellectual disability, it's a crime. Jumping over someone's head is not a hate crime, not even sure it's a crime. It's a ****ty thing to do and shouldn't be tolerated or encouraged.
Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: » And it's to give themselves a pat on the back for being so right-on. I've seen discussions on the topic of ignoring extreme obesity - people who say, in a very measured, polite, reasoned manner that it's wrong to ignore the ramifications for health, and that a more helpful approach would be to encourage getting healthy... get shouted down as haters and trolls (there is widespread ignorance of what the latter means) when there is literally zero hateful contained therein. It's also really slim employees for these companies, really slim bloggers, fashion writers etc who are the ones roaring about hatred and trolling... when they would absolutely lose it if they put on an ounce themselves. It's such a disingenuous narrative.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » This hillarious it is like a comedy sketch. By implication you would not have any form of sexual intercourse (consensual or otherwise) with someone who had an intellectual disability, even if you were horny. Implication = must be some form of last resort? Your second example the blind person, the pick pocket is after money and will pickpocket anyone he/she has a chance of getting money from. They do not only target blind people, they target all people. The pickpocket is by thier very nature inclusive.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Yes. You did make an assumption. You are also assuming I have a discomfort with Sinead now as well.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » My issue is the use of hyperbolic language 'hate crime'. Also I view people like yourself as part of the problem not the solution. The re-wrtiting of language and a rush towards outrage. Disabled = differently abled etc (It sounds laughable) It makes light of more serious issues. Also the rush to be 'inclusive' puts other labels on people they do not want. It ends up highlighting difference rather than similarity. The names just seem to get longer and more convoluted with time! You are one of those who are giving people more ammo, you are exactly the type of person who is more of a hindrance than a help. Personally if someone wrote an article about me and called it a 'hate crime' I would be disgusted. Why not call it a disturbing incident and cut down on the sensationalism? The journalist is not even treating Sinead, as she would if another person was belittled on the street. Is that really inclusive when even the crime suddenly gets given the 'hate' prefix (for any person) ?. Is Sinead from a different race or planet? She is an Irishwoman first and foremost as far as I am concerned. I have a real problem with the use of different language for the sake of it. It devalues people and labels people, despite good intentions. So if the people with good intentions put these labels on people in the name of inclusivity, what hope do the 'jokers' have?
AndrewJRenko wrote: Are you saying that 'there is no such thing as hate crime'?
AndrewJRenko wrote: I've really no idea where you're trying to go with this, but it is more bizarre than hilarious. Are you trying to promote sexual relationships with people with intellectual disabilities or what? Do you have any idea how sensitive an area this is, with the difficulties of exploitation and informed consent?
AndrewJRenko wrote: So yes, the journalist did not treat Sinead in the same way that they might treat any other person (though you conveniently ignore the fact that other people don't generally get leapfrogged over). And the journalist had very good reason for doing so.
AndrewJRenko wrote: Equality is not about treating people equally. You may well need to treat people differently to create equal outcomes. I'm not a huge fan of the 'liberation' terminology used here, but you'll get the point.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » For the record, I've never used the term 'differently abled', so you seem to have me confused with someone else.
[Deleted User] wrote: » No. I'm saying your examples are ****.
[Deleted User] wrote: » So would you be in favour of positive discrimination?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » The reality is people are not created equal and never will be. People have different strengths, weaknesses, and backgrounds.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I'd broadly agree with you there. Now what's all this got to do with whether this assault is a hate crime?
AndrewJRenko wrote: So what is your definition of hate crime?
AndrewJRenko wrote: So would you be in favour of ramps for wheelchair users?
[Deleted User] wrote: » Yes. Now please answer mine. Are you in favour of positive discrimination? Gender/race quotas in politics and or the workplace?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » It is you that brought up equality'. My argument is that the term 'hate crime' enhances difference more than prevent injustice. The term should be just a 'crime' or incidence The usage of 'hate crime' is particularly over stated the Sinead Burke article.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Acts of violence or criminality fuelled by hatred (clue is in the name).
AndrewJRenko wrote: Great, so you're in favour of positive discrimination. You did know where that was going, right?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
