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?'

Clag my dcs wouldn't refer to my friend as a freak due to having respect for her. I however in jest refer to her as shorty.

Mshighwater is making very valid points that these adverts are bringing our disabled athletes, to public awarness of the achivements that they make.

If you are worried about youngesters using the words then surley it is down to us to educate the children in the proper use of these words and why they are being used the way they are in this advert, the reasoning behind them.

I personally can say that after seeing the advert it hasnt made me look at disabled people and think freak which is what you are insinuating the advert will do. I look at these people and admire what they do and i for one can't wait to see the paralympics on telly.

Im sorry claig but i find the way that you say they are "vunerable" to be very patronising indeed. As im sure the paralympians would be.

They are vunerable from peoples narrow minded perspective and views that is all.

Yep, lots of people now saying 'bitch' and 'ho' and 'fuck', and I still stand by my opinion that it doesn't matter whether those words are used, it only matters how they are used.

"Fuck you," is a very different term from, "Fuck this."

I don't use words I know will insult certain people. I also generally try not to use words I think might insult people [e.g. I don't swear in public around kids, as their parents probably won't want them to hear it]. But I still think we'd all be happier if we just went, "Say what you like to me, I refuse to be insulted because your opinion isn't worth anything to me."

You said yourself, "They don't care if you think it is OK to insult you or not, they will do it to hurt you anyway." So if they're going to do it anyway, I might as well not be bothered! Seems to make more sense to me than getting up in arms about it.

And I don't think it is OK to insult me [or try to]. I just think that so-called 'insulting' words are only so because people choose to take them that way.

"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."

I differ with you here. Just because someone is vulnerable, doesn't mean that I would not give weight to their opinions. I think this is where we differ and why I said you may be projecting your feelings about the disabled onto me.

To me the word vulnerable denotes that someone should be protected and I don't regard making adverts with the word "freak" in as protecting vulnerable people. On the contrary, I think it is positively harmful.

"If you are worried about youngesters using the words then surley it is down to us to educate the children in the proper use of these words and why they are being used the way they are in this advert, the reasoning behind them."

I see human nature differntly to you. I think some people don't want to be educated, will wilfully do the opposite of what they are told, will intentionally want to hurt. I think they will latch on to the words used in the advert and start making use of them against disabled people. Go onto youtube and see the type of things that people say. Just look at supposed decent people like Ricky Gervais or Frankie Boyle and see how they use harmful words against disabled people. Just imagine the licence that will be given to less decent people than Gervais or Boyle.

Politicians have been trying to educate young people about knife crime, but it keeps rising.

Im sorry claig but the way you are coming across to me with your vunerable talk, is that you think disabled people all need proteting from everyone.

Why not go one step further and lets wrap them in cotton wool to protect them. God forbid they lead normal lives. I think if you watch the prog when it is on and actually listen to what they are saying your views might be changed.

If not then i feel sorry for you that your out look is that they are vunerable people.

""Say what you like to me, I refuse to be insulted because your opinion isn't worth anything to me."

but this isn't real life. People are hurt by words. Vulnerable people are picked on and words wound. There was a very moving thread on here at election time. Somebody's MIL was black and she went to vote at the polling booth and a gang of yobs started shouting something like "why don't you go back to where you came from?" and the MIL started crying. Insults hurt people, we are not robots. If you were more vulnerable you would realise how much insults do hurt.

"To me the word vulnerable denotes that someone should be protected". Claig, do you really not see how a person might take more offence at the attitude of yours that underpins this statement than at C4's use of the term "freak of nature" in this campaign?

Protected from what? Who decides what to protect these high performing athletes from anyway?

I understand that insults hurt what i dont understand is how you can make the assumption that people are vunerable with out knowing anything about them.

Forgive me if you actually know one of the paralympians and have been told by them that this advert and choice of words is making them feel vunerable.

If not then i don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Like i said watch the programme and see if it changes your views.

MsHighwater I don't think anything taht we say will get claig to see it anyway other than these athletes are vunerable and need protecting.

Personally when my midget friend is having a go at someone it is them that needs the protection not her

I won't change my mind in thinking trhat these adverts are very misguided because I am not as progressive as you. Even your progressive Labour party brought in laws to outlaw hate speech, homophobic and racist language, to protect vulnerable minorities from abuse. I think that was the right thing to do. I believe in protecting minorities and vulnerable people from any harm, including verbal abuse.

I don't believe in a free-for-all law of the jungle, where anyone is allowed to abuse someone for their colour, race or disability.
I think minorities are vulnerable and need the protection of the law, and the progressive Labour party also agrees.

I know people are hurt by words, but my point, again, is that they are so because they allow themselves to be.

I have been hurt by words in the past, when I was definitely a damn sight more vulnerable, until I realised that being hurt did not get me anywhere, as the people trying to hurt me were still doing so. So I just stopped caring that they thought I was a freak or a dyke or a loser, and not only did it make me happier because I could stop being unhappy when they used those terms, but it had an added bonus of making them realise that I didn't care, and so it wasn't worth bothering to try to insult me, and they stopped anyway.

Even in times when I am still vulnerable now [e.g. on the top deck of the midnight bus, only female, only white person, two black guys who I've just seen get into a fight with two white guys on the street before the bus came ranting about one of them getting fucking white blood on his phone] I don't suddenly become more insulted.

"Who decides what to protect these high performing athletes from anyway?"

the advert is about much more than these individual athletes.

Glitterandglue, you're a stronger person than me and many others. We are vulnerable, we do get hurt by insults. The MIL cried. Was it her fault that she cried? or was it the fault of the yobs who were abusing her in a disgusting manner?

"the advert is about much more than these individual athletes."

Yes Claig you are correct the advert is also highlighting what this disabled athletes are capable of achieving.

I like to think that they can become role models for disabled people out there like able bodied footballers do for millions of people.

They are saying look we are all disabled but we are making the most of our lives and achieveing things you can also do this.

Its showing that a disability doesnt mean your life is over and you aren't able to do things that able bodied people are.

It's not about them saying look we are disabled and vunerable and being forced to say things just to keep the advertisers happy.

Of course I agree that these athletes are exceptional people with great achievements and the advert shows this. But I think it is ruined by the use of "freaks of nature". Do you think the athletes chose this phrase? Their achievements are obvious, they don't need "freaks of nature" to highlight them.

I will tell you what i will do Claig iw ill send my friend a message and ask her to ask the athlete concerned if he choose or was forced to use the phrase freaks of nature.

If it comes back that he wasnt forced to use it will that then satisfy you that they are not venerable people how are being made and example off.

yes please do, but don't use the loaded term forced. I think they were told "hey we have this advert idea, do you want to do it?". Ask them if they had any reservations at all about the language. I think it will be interesting.

I don't see that anyone on here has said they believe in "a free-for-all law of the jungle, where anyone is allowed to abuse someone..."

Again, no one with an ounce of social nous thinks it is right to insult others.

Even if you make it physically impossible for someone to use the word 'queer' or 'dyke' or 'lesbo' or 'faggot' etc, they can still very easily show their homophobia. But if everyone else uses these words in a manner which insinuates the words [not a negative meaning behind them] are acceptable, they lose their gravitas when coming from a homophobe.

I can call you a Lego brick in the right tone of voice and make it sound like I think you're not worth the dirt on the bottom of my shoe. The term is irrelevant!

As for protecting people...let me put it this way, if you have a victim mentality, it is a thousand times easier for you to become a victim. That's why bullies pick on the kids who don't fight back. It's easy. If someone knows they are affecting you, and they want to keep pushing your buttons, they will. If you refuse to let them affect you [or even if you pretend well enough that they're not affecting you] they will pretty soon get bored and go away.

It boils down to: If you want to be offended, be offended. But it won't make a damn bit of difference to what's happening, and you're suffering.

kids started using the term "gay" in a derogatory fashion i.e. "that's so gay" or "that's a gay idea" etc.

People didn't consider this harmless, they were worried that it may lead to gay people being regarded in a derogatory fashion. Words are very powerful and there is no getting around that.

You can't " reclaim" or "seize back" a word you never would have embraced in the first place.

In terms of the MIL, both. While what the people who were abusing her did was disgusting, and clearly inappropriate - and I do encourage feeling anger or annoyance or disgust or whatever at their actions - the MIL cried, I am assuming, not because they would do such a thing, but because she cared that they thought this about her. Again, this is an assumption, and if it's wrong, then it's not her fault at all - crying because you're upset at what someone has done is a valid response.

But if she did care, as I've been saying all along, she [as everyone] would have been a damn sight less affected if she had allowed herself not to cared. Again, it's not easy, and it's not what most of us are socialised to do. We're generally socialised to take offense. But I do believe people can fight against it.

The way I see it is that unless someone knows me/a certain facet of my personality or body, they are not qualified to judge me/that certain facet. And if they're not qualified to judge me/that facet, their opinion is irrelevant. I don't ask people who barely read for opinions on my writing, because they haven't a clue about it. In the same way, I wouldn't treat the opinions of people who don't have any understanding of what it's like to be different as anything to be bothered with when that's what they're talking about.

Gay is slightly different though, because it was a word with already a positive meaning [happy] and an arguably neutral meaning [homosexual] - depending on your opinion.

Using it in a derogatory manner added a negative connotation which wasn't previously there. It's like the opposite of using freak to mean disabled person in a bad way, and then using it to mean disabled person in a good way. Except not an exact opposite, because in the sense of freak, it's being used by both sides to mean disabled person - the difference is only whether that is positive or negative.

Gay is being used by lots of people these days to mean BOTH homosexual and something negative, and the worry is that these two meanings will become connected in kids'/idiots' minds.

And like I say, it's about intent. Gay was a term to mean homosexual with no negative connotations, before. Now the word itself has negative connotations, and people thinking that has no effect on the fact that it's also used to mean homosexual is actually more dangerous than people deliberately using freak in a derogatory manner.

I think the MIL cried because she was frightened and vulnerable. She was a minority with no one to protect her at that time, she was alone. There was a gang of threatening yobs who had singled her out because of her colour, because she was different. She felt unsafe due to her difference. If she was the same colour as them, they couldn't have made her feel vulnerable in this particular way. If she had had her sons or brothers with her, she would not have been vulnerable. I don't think we are socialised to take offence. I think we are frightened of being singled out due to our difference. We shouldn't encourage people to focus on difference or 'freaks of nature', but on the athletes' achievements alone.

Glitterandglue - By saying it's the choice of the 'victim' to choose their reaction, you're putting the onus on them to change their behaviour, not the bigot.

And loser, e.t.c is very different from racist, homophobic or disablist abuse. Especially as verbal abuse is often accompanied by physical abuse.

The intention is a load of bollocks imo, offensive is offensive. Lego brick will never be the same as the n word or r word , no matter what tone of voice you say it in, because those words have a history of oppressive and demeaning usage and lego brick doesn't.

You're trying to make it about semantics rather then discrimination in society.

Okay, so in this situation it wasn't about words, it was about feeling actually unsafe. [I didn't see the original post, so am only going on your descriptions - all you said at first was that they were yelling at her, then later that they were threatening.]

Also you were talking about the fact that insults hurt, so I was responding to that with the view that the MIL was hurt by these insults.

If she was crying because she was frightened and felt vulnerable, that of course is a normal response. But then that's not to do with words. I would feel frightened and vulnerable if I felt that I might actually be hurt. So if she felt like there was a possibility of being physically hurt, then fair enough. But if the only hurt she thought was possible was from their words, then I think my point still stands.

If it was as you now describe "a gang of threatening yobs" then I could understand crying as a response because I should imagine these days it's pretty easy to think that if you do say or do anything in response, they'll physically harm you. However, the words on their own - say, if this was a gang who did the same but on an internet forum - should not evoke the same response.