Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Do I take offence when people stereotype poor eyesight with having a mental disability. Na, not really.
So if anybody is worried that people with lazy eyes or what ever would take offence on their own behalf, I can tell you that not all of them would.

Except that "Derpy" does not refer to someone with lazy eye.  It refers to someone with a mental handicap.  Having watched the clip it seems pretty clear the character was being acting like a horribly stereotyped mentally disabled person rather than someone who had trouble seeing things.

I mean... damn, the whole show comes across horribly in that scene.  The message seems to be "Damn, aren't the mentally disabled a nuisance".

I mean, I wouldn't have forced Hasbro to correct it, but I don't see why you'd complain at them for removing the most offensive elements of it voluntarily.

[RedKing]

I'd say YMMV. Besides, you eventually hit a point where SOMEONE has to be the bad guy/girl/thing. If it's not an Evil Albino or Evil Cripple, it's a Wicked Stepmother or Evil Eunuch or even....people with facial hair.

I'll grant that minorities -- especially ones seen as far outside the mainstream -- tend to wind up villainized more than most. But my point is that unless the villains are always utterly inhuman, there's going to be some aspect of them that people can point to and say, "Aha! You're negatively portraying X!" Why do you think Nazis are such popular villains? Because nobody is seriously going to step up and defend Nazis.

[Virex]

I'd say YMMV. Besides, you eventually hit a point where SOMEONE has to be the bad guy/girl/thing. If it's not an Evil Albino or Evil Cripple, it's a Wicked Stepmother or Evil Eunuch or even....people with facial hair.

I'll grant that minorities -- especially ones seen as far outside the mainstream -- tend to wind up villainized more than most. But my point is that unless the villains are always utterly inhuman, there's going to be some aspect of them that people can point to and say, "Aha! You're negatively portraying X!" Why do you think Nazis are such popular villains? Because nobody is seriously going to step up and defend Nazis.

Now you're falsely equating the troubles faced by disadvantaged minority groups with non-disadvantaged minority groups. In our current society, there is no structural oppression of bearded people and as such the problems that are associated with having, say, evil gypsies, don't count for evil bearded people.

[Andir]

In our current society, there is no structural oppression of bearded people...

[offtopic]
There is a stigma to being bearded in parts of society though.  One example is UPS where drivers are not permitted facial hair below the lip/ear line because the founder felt that beards look unprofessional.  There's also a stigma on beards that portray the man as lazy or homeless.
[/offtopic]
As far as the topic... I don't see it as comparing the two.  I see it as pointing out that the specific subsection is not the sole bearer of discrimination in society.

[RedKing]

I'd say YMMV. Besides, you eventually hit a point where SOMEONE has to be the bad guy/girl/thing. If it's not an Evil Albino or Evil Cripple, it's a Wicked Stepmother or Evil Eunuch or even....people with facial hair.

I'll grant that minorities -- especially ones seen as far outside the mainstream -- tend to wind up villainized more than most. But my point is that unless the villains are always utterly inhuman, there's going to be some aspect of them that people can point to and say, "Aha! You're negatively portraying X!" Why do you think Nazis are such popular villains? Because nobody is seriously going to step up and defend Nazis.

Now you're falsely equating the troubles faced by disadvantaged minority groups with non-disadvantaged minority groups. In our current society, there is no structural oppression of bearded people and as such the problems that are associated with having, say, evil gypsies, don't count for evil bearded people.

Try running for higher office in this country with a beard (or facial hair in general). Seriously. There hasn't been a serious Presidential candidate in 96 years with a beard, because the focus groups have flat out said that voters don't trust people with facial hair. Hmmm...why could that be?

Oh. Yeah.

It's not just political office, it's the corporate boardroom as well. Now, I'm not saying we bearded folk are an oppressed minority. We don't have people chasing us down in the streets or hurling random invective at us. But yeah, there are negative effects that go along with it. And certainly it gets some minor reinforcement every time a bad guy on TV or the big screen is rocking the whiskers while facing defeat at the hands of a freshly-shorn good guy.

[GlyphGryph]

But the motive behind it is the same - identifiably different.

I'm not sure I like the original portrayal - I'd find all of the things that happened perfectly fine if she was already an established and sympathetic character, but this is the most screen time she's had. Fanon-wise: Yes, she's a bit slow, clumsy, and has an eye problem, and the difficulties she overcomes with her earnestness and innocence and dedication are what make her a sympathetic character in the fan community.

If you leave out the theme of overcoming hardship and personal faults to find friends and happiness, and just use those faults for laughs... (I don't have a problem using them for laughs as long as the context is established - a context that exists online but is lacking here)... yeah, I can see how that would be offensive, and I can definitely see why they would want it removed.

The portrayal wasn't the sort of portrayal I was hoping for, that's for sure. If anything, it seems actively harmful to what she's supposed to mean to the part of the fanbase that cares about her, and pretty insulting to the audience.

So yeah.

[Caz]

So this thread is just for arguing on every subject? I read the first post but I'm still not sure. 

It's about progressives raging about stuff against progressivism.

So the status quo is bad just because it's what is? Why is change always a good thing?

[Ogdibus]

But the motive behind it is the same - identifiably different.

I'm not sure I like the original portrayal - I'd find all of the things that happened perfectly fine if she was already an established and sympathetic character, but this is the most screen time she's had. Fanon-wise: Yes, she's a bit slow, clumsy, and has an eye problem, and the difficulties she overcomes with her earnestness and innocence and dedication are what make her a sympathetic character in the fan community.

If you leave out the theme of overcoming hardship and personal faults to find friends and happiness, and just use those faults for laughs... (I don't have a problem using them for laughs as long as the context is established - a context that exists online but is lacking here)... yeah, I can see how that would be offensive, and I can definitely see why they would want it removed.

The portrayal wasn't the sort of portrayal I was hoping for, that's for sure. If anything, it seems actively harmful to what she's supposed to mean to the part of the fanbase that cares about her, and pretty insulting to the audience.

So yeah.

This is kind of the impression that I got.  I'm not sure how clearly I stated it, based on the reactions, so far, though.

[scriver]

Change is good when it's good change. Nobody's ever argued that all change is good. For example, outlawing abortions would be bad change.

[Nadaka]

On stigma of facial hair:

Which of these gentlemen would you vote for?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[RedKing]

Interesting pic, although the use of color vs. B&W skews it a bit as well.

At least in pop culture, facial hair is making a comeback. Unfortunately, it's frequently doing so by being worn by a lot of douchebags. So it's a mixed blessing.

[G-Flex]

But the motive behind it is the same - identifiably different.

I'm not sure I like the original portrayal - I'd find all of the things that happened perfectly fine if she was already an established and sympathetic character, but this is the most screen time she's had. Fanon-wise: Yes, she's a bit slow, clumsy, and has an eye problem, and the difficulties she overcomes with her earnestness and innocence and dedication are what make her a sympathetic character in the fan community.

If you leave out the theme of overcoming hardship and personal faults to find friends and happiness, and just use those faults for laughs... (I don't have a problem using them for laughs as long as the context is established - a context that exists online but is lacking here)... yeah, I can see how that would be offensive, and I can definitely see why they would want it removed.

The portrayal wasn't the sort of portrayal I was hoping for, that's for sure. If anything, it seems actively harmful to what she's supposed to mean to the part of the fanbase that cares about her, and pretty insulting to the audience.

It's worth noting that even a positive or seemingly sympathetic portrayal can be incredibly patronizing, condescending, or offensive. I can't speak for how the fandom acted about the character before she had a speaking role in the show, but even if they tried to portray her sympathetically, that doesn't mean they did so in a way that was inoffensive.

[Ogdibus]

But the motive behind it is the same - identifiably different.

I'm not sure I like the original portrayal - I'd find all of the things that happened perfectly fine if she was already an established and sympathetic character, but this is the most screen time she's had. Fanon-wise: Yes, she's a bit slow, clumsy, and has an eye problem, and the difficulties she overcomes with her earnestness and innocence and dedication are what make her a sympathetic character in the fan community.

If you leave out the theme of overcoming hardship and personal faults to find friends and happiness, and just use those faults for laughs... (I don't have a problem using them for laughs as long as the context is established - a context that exists online but is lacking here)... yeah, I can see how that would be offensive, and I can definitely see why they would want it removed.

The portrayal wasn't the sort of portrayal I was hoping for, that's for sure. If anything, it seems actively harmful to what she's supposed to mean to the part of the fanbase that cares about her, and pretty insulting to the audience.

It's worth noting that even a positive or seemingly sympathetic portrayal can be incredibly patronizing, condescending, or offensive. I can't speak for how the fandom acted about the character before she had a speaking role in the show, but even if they tried to portray her sympathetically, that doesn't mean they did so in a way that was inoffensive.

I find that this is where trying to have broad appeal can be a problem.  What upsets the "normal" majority, might actually be acceptable to the relevant minority, thus deterring those would try to help, but not those who would do harm or exploit.  Without appealing to the majority, however, one loses the opportunity to communicate the best interests of the minority.  Hopefully, this is not one of those situations.

[kaenneth]

Interesting pic, although the use of color vs. B&W skews it a bit as well.

At least in pop culture, facial hair is making a comeback. Unfortunately, it's frequently doing so by being worn by a lot of douchebags. So it's a mixed blessing.

Pop culture is defined by douchebags, so it' unavoidable.

[MadocComadrin]

On stigma of facial hair:

Which of these gentlemen would you vote for?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I suppose that brings a new meaning to "Reductio ad Hitlerum."

I'd vote for the stashless Hitler, because it doesn't remind me of Hitler as much as a mustachioed Hitler does.