Paralympics ad on TV

[wahwahwah]

...err 'I am a freak of nature'.

Um, the word 'freak' - I thought I midheard until it was on again last night. Am I being a bit 'PC' on this or is it really offensive?

.. DS is fascinated my amputees running on their blades. 'Mummy, can I do that when I am bigger?'

good point, GothAnneGeddes, they are being patronised

claig, by saying "they think the ad execs must know what they are doing" you clearly are presuming that the athletes do not know what they are doing. What grounds have you for thinking that? I do hope it's not because you, secretly, assume that, because they are disabled, they must have been swayed by the impressive able-bodied folks?

I found this article and thought these quotes interesting.

"The 'Freaks of Nature' campaign, launching on Sunday, aims to continue the promotion of the Paralympic Games, and make household names out of disabled athletes."

"Bellamy stated that research shows 84% of the public could not name a single British Paralympian, despite Britain coming second in the medals table in last Games. The campaign is "trying to dramatically change that lack of awareness", he said."

"Bellamy, added: "The Freaks of Nature marketing trail is part of a bold campaign that portrays Paralympians as Channel 4 feels they should be seen - supremely talented athletes who, like their able bodies sporting counterparts, are set apart from the rest of us by their staggering ability, not their disability."

"Channel 4 won the rights to air the Paralympic Games earlier this year, and Bellamy has confirmed that, apart from programmes such as the news, the channel's schedule will be cleared for 150 hours of live coverage of the Paralympics, running from 29 August to 9 September 2012."

This is, I'm sure, more coverage than disability sport has ever previously had. Channel 4 must be doing something right, anyway.

But, I haven't seen the ads so am off to find a vid. Might be back once i've found it...

Whatever gave you the idea that I thought it had anything to do with the fact that they are disabled? Are you sick? Are you projecting what you think onto me?

I specifically said it is similar to charity campaigns (and I'll add now swine flu vaccine campaigns) where famous actors and comedians are handed a script and told what to say by the people hiring them.

You sound right-on to me. You probably like the right-on Ricky Gervais, but even he understands how it works. Watch his jokes about Comic Relief, which he takes part in.

I personally am glad to see that paralympic atheltes are finally getting prime time air in this country and not swept to the side like they always have been.

I no a paralympian we went to school together she is a midget who does shotput for team GB.

They have always complained that it was to pc to show them on telly like the able bodied athletes. Lets be honest about it they normally do a lot better in the olympics than the able bodied athletes.

As for saying they are told what to say by advertising execs these are grown adults with a mind and opinion of there own. Do you really think that for one second if they disagred with it they would say it?.

claig, you seem to have dismissed the idea that the athletes could have rationally chosen to take part because they agree with both the objectives of the campaign and with its method. I'm merely speculating about why you might leap to that conclusion.

Actually can't stand Ricky Gervais but not sure what that will tell you about me other than that I don't like Ricky Gervais.

Now if the Comic Relief films were presented by, for example, starving children from Africa, you might have a point.

I really can't comment directly on the ad because I haven't seen it but it sounds like it at least could be about claiming derogatory language and subverting the meaning that is intended to demean and belittle. It has been done with "cripple". Maybe this is an attempt to do the same. I don't know, certainly not without seeing the video. I certainly applaud anything that will increase the coverage of the Paralympics on TV.

do you think if they disagreed with saying it, that they would be in the advert? Do you think they would rewrite the advert for them? Sorry, I don't think they would. The "creative officers" know exactly what they want to say and what they want to convey.

claig, you yourself said, "these athletes are told what to say by the execs who hand them the script and pay them for their services. They think the ad execs must know what they are doing, with their copies of the Guardian under their arms."

This clearly insinuates that you think that the athletes aren't smart enough to think about the message the campaigns sends out for themselves, but trust the ad execs to do so.

Of course, the other possibility is that you're meaning to say that the athletes don't give a toss what message it sends out because they're being paid. That is an entirely different kettle of fish, and basically irrelevant to the argument whether or not it's a good message anyway. You and others think it isn't, I and others think it is, whether or not the athletes involved do.

claig, is it ad people you have a problem with specifically or Guardian readers generally?

I think the ad people approach the athletes and tell them of their ideas. I bet some of the athletes were hesitant to say what they said, but I think they are convinced to do it because the ad types tell them about the new powerful shock tactic techniques that they say can change people's minds. The reason that I reach that conclusion, is because I have been in many meetings similar things occur and where people are persuaded to go along with something they are unsure about. My guess is that some of these athletes were unsure about this. 2shoes is the mother of a disabled daughter and she is against it. I think some of the athletes also had their doubts.

Glad you don't like Ricky Gervais, I don't like the right-on twat either. Comic Relief will never be presented by children from Africa, just as at Live Aid very few African artists were asked to perform. This is always the way, and credit to Gervais, he understands how these things work and shows us, even though he takes part himself.

"I haven't seen it but it sounds like it at least could be about claiming derogatory language and subverting the meaning that is intended to demean and belittle. It has been done with "cripple"

that is what all the progressive teenage spotty ad execs say, and I think it is wrong and actually harms disabled people, by giving licence to people who wish to use their derogatory language against disabled and vulnerable people.

This is not a one-off advert, it is part of a trend of shock tactic ads that the "creative officers" think are a good idea. there have been similar ones about race, homophobia, sexism etc. I think they are harmful adverts.

"claig, is it ad people you have a problem with specifically or Guardian readers generally?"

mainly right-on progressives, of which they both form a part

Right, I've just watched it and I don't see anything wrong. (Disclaimer: I am not disabled so do not stand to be offended, if indeed, offence could reasonably be taken).

I clearly see it as seizing back and turning around language that has been used in a derogatory sense, to demean and to cause harm. It is turning the weapon back on those who have used it. At least, I reckon that's what it is trying to do. It is saying "you might have thought I was a "freak" because of my disability but could you: run this fast with only one leg/ score a goal when you can't see the ball or the goal/ etc?".

British Paralympians regularly bring back more medals than the British Olympic team. Why don't we hear more about them?

We dont hear more of them MsHighwater as they were always seen as something to be shyed away from.

Now at long last they are going to the recognition they deserve. My dcs refer to my friend as mummys little friend due to her being a midget.

She went to a mainstream school. Am i meant to tell my dcs that they arent allowed to refer to her in this way now?

claig, "disabled people" are as diverse as any other group in society. Stands to reason when you think how random what they have in common can be. Opinion on all issues is as wide-ranging as it would be in any other cross-section of people.

My point about Comic Relief films being presented by starving kids from Africa is simple. The group you think are being harmed is also the group from which all the athletes participating in the film are drawn. It is patronising to assume that they have been coerced or manipulated into taking part and really quite tempting to suspect your reasons for insisting it must be so.

Would you be happy for your children to refer to her as a "freak"? Can you not see the difference between "mummy's little friend" and "freak"?

claig, the point you are missing is that it would not be acceptable for tjacksonpfc's children, or any other non-disabled person (other than in certain circumstances), to use the word "freak" directly to refer to a disabled person. That's not how this thing works. It can only be used by a disabled person to refer to themselves or to another disabled person. Just as it is in the ad.

MsHighWater you should apply for a job with Poirot, you see suspects around every corner. You are not disabled and I think you may be projecting your own feelings onto me.

Nope, claig, you've lost me there. Care to explain?

I think you are missing the fact that people will use the word "freak" towards disabled people as a result of the ad that you think is doing such good work. The use of the term will spread. There have been reports about these shock ads proving that they do not work. Go onto youtube and watch one of these ads and read the vile comments of the people who laugh about it and use the language of the ad against the people the "creative officers" supposedly intended to help. It is a process of de-sensitization and normalisation of these words. I think it is harmful to all vulnerable people.

MsHighwater, I have tried to explain why I think these adverts are very harmful and misguided and you have not understood why. I'm not sure you will understand any explanations I give.

I disagree that taking back derogatory terms gives licence to people to use it to insult people. As I said earlier, it's about intent. When these atheletes refer to themselves as freaks [or indeed, someone with Asperger's refers to themselves as a retard, or a gay man refers to himself as a queer] they are not saying, "It's okay for you to insult me." Neither are they saying, "You're right, I am a freak/retard/queer, and I am ashamed of it." They are saying, "You can try to insult me, but I won't let you."

It is still wrong for people to try to insult others, no matter what terms are used. Anyone with half an ounce of social nous knows that.

The point isn't the word used, but the intent. I told my mother - who has MS - that she looked like a freak the other day, because she was sweeping apples to one side of the lawn and bread to the other side with a brush, and she looked ridiculous. She laughed. However, she wouldn't be laughing if someone snarled it at her in the street because she was using her walking stick.

Claig, you have indeed tried to explain your view and I have, in turn, tried to explain why I think you are wrong (and patronising). It's the reference to Poirot and suspects and me projecting my feelings onto you that foxed me.

Oh, and I think part of the message the campaign is trying to get across is that, even if they are disabled, these athletes are, of all things, not "vulnerable", don't you?

People don't do what is OK. They iften do the opposite. They don't care if you think it is OK to insult you or not, they will do it to hurt you anyway. These adverts are not reclaiming the words, they are breathing new life into them and we will see the use of the words spread. Just as the not OK words of bitch and ho are now in widespread use through them being "reclaimed" by gangster rap. The f word is now in nearly every movie, because the progressives "reclaimed" it, and now everyone is exposed to it and its use is spreading. These adverts will have the same effect.

"Oh, and I think part of the message the campaign is trying to get across is that, even if they are disabled, these athletes are, of all things, not "vulnerable", don't you?"

I think these athletes are vulnerable. I don't think the ads have changed that. If they go to town on Saturday and a gang of yobs start shouting "freak" at them, the adverts won't prevent them being vulnerable. I think the adverts make them more vulnerable.

"fuck" is not the same kind of word, though, is it?

People will always use words as weapons. If someone yells "freak", their intent is clear. If, on the other hand, another person describes a person as, to pluck a word at randon, "vulnerable" the effect of that can be much more harmful and insidiously so. If I think you are "vulnerable", I'm hardly likely to give you much responsibility for anything important and I might not give that much weight to your opinion.