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?'

I wasn't there, so I am only guessing by what I would feel. I would have felt frightened because I was on my own, not explicitly because they intended to harm me. However, if my husband was with me, I would not have been frightened, and they would not have said anything. For me the words alone would be frightening if I was on my own, because they reveal a hatred that is frightening and could possibly lead to more harm.

I am not saying that it's the victim's responsibility entirely, far from it. But I do think they hold some amount of responsibility for being offended.

Physical abuse is an entirely different matter.

I concede that nigger etc will be 'more offensive' than Lego brick, if both words are being used in an offensive manner. But my point wasn't that Lego brick can be 'just as offensive' as nigger, but that you can use any word in an offensive manner, and I believe it's the manner we should object to, not the word itself.

I would be more annoyed at someone calling me a Lego brick in a sneery tone of voice than calling their black friend [who doesn't mind the term being used towards them] a nigger in a friendly manner.

Claig. You might not like this. Some people do hate other people, for their own peculiar reasons. The WORDS they use, when expressing hatred, make absolutely NO difference to the sentiment.

If those yobs had yelled "Like your coat, Missus!" at that woman, with the same feeling, then that woman would have been just as upset. Being hated hurts: it doesn't matter what words are used to show it.

You seem to hate (or, at least, despise) ad execs and Guardian readers. Apart from your idiosyncratic use of the term "creative officers", you haven't used loaded words about them but your loathing shows through anyway. My nephews know they're not allowed to use "spastic" as an insult, so they say "scoper" - to mean the same thing. Change the words, you change nothing.

By fixating on the term "Freak of Nature", you seem to be making the following assumptions:

1] World-class athletes are vulnerable bunnies, who need to be protected from words you dislike.

2] A Paralympian could not be freakishly gifted, the word freak must refer to their disabilities.

3] Freak is an insult.

4] Disabled people are incapable of making informed choices about the ads they're invited to take part in.

5] Advertising professionals are capable of mind control.

Plus, as an aside, [6] Ad execs read the Guardian! (Very few do)

I disagree with all of your assumptions.

I read the Guardian myself sometimes. I don't despise Guardian readers, I just think that many of their views are misguided, as are those of the people who made this advert. I agree being hated hurts, hate is frightening. The idiosyncratic term 'creative officer' came from the channel 4 website that somebody linked to where an executive was described as an 'acting creative officer'. I had never heard that term before and think the term is funny and indicates exactly why I think some of these creative types are so misguided and how they could possibly come up with adverts such as these.

I think the term 'freaks of nature' is being used in a much wider sense than these athletes and that is why I don't like it.
I think the ad executives chose the word freak specifically because of its usual connotation. I think freak is an insult, which is why the ad execs chose to use the word. I explained that it is nothing to do with disabled people not being able to make choices. I believe 'creative officers' and PR people convince many people to go along with their suggestions. That's how Gordon Brown was persuaded to adopt the 'rictus grin' and to tell the world that his favourite band was the 'Arctic Monkeys'. Advertising executives would like to think that they are capable of mind control, which is why they are often known as 'mind benders', but as with this advert, most people can see that the emperor has no clothes. However, the PR and ad people do influence their clients, as evidenced by the disastrous performance of Gordon Brown. If he had turned a deaf ear to them and been himself, he may have stood a chance.

I am surprised that ad execs don't read the Guardian and this has raised them in my estimation. I take it you are an ad exec and know what they do read. Is it the Beano?

Viz, mainly.

first time someone calls my son a freak be intresting to see who hits that person first

At 7 my dd knows that calling someone a freak becuas ethey are differnt is wrong so surley grown adults can see it

Freak is also a word used with pride in the sports community. When my dh was a bodybuilder most of his friends were actively aspiring to become freaks. They wanted to lift freakishly heavy weights and they wanted to look like freaks. It was something they wanted to be called. Top athletes are frequently labeled freaks in the press, partly it has to be said in terms of whether they are naturally freakily good or used drugs to get there (like dh's bodybuilding friends). If you google "freak of nature" and Usain Bolt for example you get over 5,500 hits (and 128,000 for just freak), same for Jonny Wilkinson and Michael Phelps even more so. Because they are all extraordinary. Personally I think that the top Paralypians are even more so, and yet they are almost totally invisible.

Here are a couple of the Canadian Paralympic team members:

My company sponsored the Vancouver games and we had some of the Paralympians visit our office. They were fantastic, inspiring, charismatic and incredibly strong people. I suspect they would have been a lot less angry at being described as "freaks" than patted on the head and being told they were vulnerable.

Personally I'm not totally sure about the whole reclaiming of negative words concept, and words can certainly hurt very deeply, but there is some pedigree on this one, as there have been a number of documentaries made by disabled activists that used the term very deliberately so I don't think that this is necessarily a concept dreamed up by a stupid advertising exec.

I also wonder whether the disabled athletes think of themselves as primarily people with disabilities or as athletes, because I suspect that might well affect the way they view this promotion. I read some interesting discussion on the role of the IPC in this context in terms of whether the Paralymics were about participating or about extraordinary sports (in some ways very similar to debates in the main Olympic movement about whether it's about taking part, good sportmanship, word peace etc or about individuals winning at pretty much all costs. For those interested in such things
here is a preview of what looks like a really interesting, although quite academic book about the politics of the paralympic movement.

So if somebody shouted out 'freak of nature' to a disabled person in the street, do you think that this would be OK? This advert is about far more than these athletes, and the people who created the advert know that very well. Yes these shock type ads are becoming more prevalent and it is not surprising that they are becoming normalised, which is why even some disabled people think that they are good adverts. I think they are misguided and that these adverts will backfire on disabled people. O think the normalisation of this sort of language is dangerous.

Here is an example of a right-on comedian, Ricky Gervais, using the term 'freak of the year' to describe a woman.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/13/disability-joke-frankie-boyle

The people who created this advert probably think Gervais is funny and is reclaiming the word. Maybe they think that the freak shows of circuses are OK too.

yep its someone in the street who cant get their head round the way freak is being used to describe their athletic skill rather than the condtion they have

and that then makes some people feel its ok to call someone else a freak as hey well i saw it on the telly and they called themselves it .Not understanding how it was used

Oh and just in case did check with one of the people who runs sons sport club who is looking likely to make the Gb paraoylmpic so a top class athelete for basketball and chair racing and he hates the term and said he will anyone a earfull if its ever used in his hearing

If someone "shouted out" anything at me in the street I'd be upset. People in the street rarely shout out nice things do they? It's rude and aggressive and intimidatory.

Ricky Gervais is obnoxious.

and yes this promotion could be misguided, and I'm sure that there will be some people with disabilities who hate it and some who think it's great, and challenging and powerful. Time will tell I guess.

I do think that it is incredibly patronising to go on about another group of people as vulnerable and imply that they are stupid and don't know what they are doing, and when that group happen to also be disabled I would suspect that person didn't have a very high opinion of disabled people as individuals in their own right, quite capable of making as good or bad a decision as the rest of us. I think that follows the "does she take sugar" approach that people with disabilities have been fighting for many years.

Obviously designed to cause controversy and it would appear they are trying to highlight these athletes abilities, not there disabilities.

But i can this positive quickly becoming a negative and reinforcing playground insults. After all the world is not only made up of adults who understand the intended meaning.

I see Barmyarmy is here "Stop seeking to be offended and feeling the need to tell the whole fricking world about it, please"

Were you not offended by 'words' on another thread as you asked MN to have the posters comments deleted?

Whats the problem if words are just words?

I think it is incredibly misguided and naive not to see that vulnerable people exist and need to be protected from abuse. I think that someone who cannot understand that doesn't have a good understanding of people, and has too high an opinion of the yob in the street, if they think that they won't use this language against disabled people, as Riven pointed out with the case of Joey Deacon. Everybody is capable of making good and bad decisions, and I think this is a very bad decision.

"Why do so many people revel in offence??"

Classic from a man who had someone else's words deleted, as he took offence!

Would also add, he is a grown man and takes offence at words, how the fuck does he think, young children will feel.

Yep because freak will be used for all disablites and on people that are paticulary vunerable

Not in context of what the add people tried to use it as a s consenus amongst some of Uk top sports people with disablites is it's wrong now if they themselves can see what's wrong it why can't other adults

they know that it would be come acceptable and would be used to attack others that are unable to so readily defend themselves with words

Oh and he also said he's no freak of nature as took him hrs of training and dedication to get to the level he is

Mornin' all

There is a difference between someone personally abused in a 2- (or multi-) way exchange on this forum on the one hand...and people claiming to be offended 'by proxy' by an advert on TV.

In my view, anyway

Morning Riven, I know my very presence on here winds you up but I will try and play nicely, for your sake.

No were saying that there is a potential for abuse ,we can see how it'd likely to be misused

Barmyarmy how many atheletes you asked about it then? Or had any experiamce of disablity

Morning BA, what you have just typed defeats your whole theory!

Most are not offended 'by proxy', but through experience. As you said to 2shoes, grow up, if someone insults your child, take it up with them. So if her child is personally abused in a 2 way exchange, its not by proxy.

Claw3 - yes, if someone insults your child, take it up with them.

But this advert is not insulting your child.

No but what were saying Is that's it's not been thought through properly and how people will see it

Wonders how many times till BA understands it

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions please