|
||||||||
Will the next winner of pop idol be blind? |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The moon
Posts: 2,476
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Pushka Actually, Pushka, you have, IMO, captured the point beautifully.I think it's rather a lovely image that DH is painting - the nation rallies round to give a helping hand to those we perceive as disadvantaged in some way in their chosen field. If it's discriminatory, then it's positive discrimination not negative. (btw, the reason no one mentions the word F-A-T is that it tends to provoke a hysterical reaction from some of Michelle's supporters - I do hope words like handicapped and disabled don't go the same way, as according to the dictionary there are a number of perfectly valid uses for the words) It is rather a lovely image, yes. Let's raise our glass (glasses? Am I seeing double?) to the compassionate GBP. And no, I am not being sarcastic. I still feel that the point is valid, even if DH didn't put it quite as beautifully as you have.
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Watching wind farms
Posts: 24,049
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TrishaB With the greatest of respect to you Trisha...The point isn't that Michelle didn't deserve to win. The point is that Pop Idols, as one can see from World Idol, don't tend to fit the mold. This may be good, or it may be bad. But I do feel that positive discrimination, which I am as much against as discrimination of any kind, does play a part in competitions like this. I DO think that Michelle deserved to win, (apart from Sam, ofc). Many others share that opinion as well as those who think Michelle was a poor winner. This is another of these opinion and perspective situations. I don't find DH reasonable at all because I don't believe that positive discrimination played a part...not a big enough part to secure all those votes in any case. As I said...this is a very old arguement which has been done to death on these threads and people either like Michelle or not. What's not to accept about that? It's just that when the 'reasons' are now put down to disabiltity....I think that's more than clumsy. |
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Watching wind farms
Posts: 24,049
|
Quote:
Originally posted by shortysally Do not fear, Sals...Trisha and I are cool. Calm down please guys! Don't want you falling out! I think the thread title and the stuff about real disabilities (like Gareth's stammer and Will's lisp) were offensive and inappropriate imo, but the argument as to whether michelle would have won if she was slim is an interesting one, it should just have been said in an inoffensive way. Aren't we Trisha?*Gets pillow ready for a fight* |
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The moon
Posts: 2,476
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZipGypsy Unqualified yes here, Zip!Do not fear, Sals...Trisha and I are cool. Aren't we Trisha?*Gets pillow ready for a fight* Put those pillows away!
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Huddersfield
Posts: 1,590
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TrishaB I wouldn't have said I was overreacting to the comments about disability...Zip, normally I agree with you, and I can see just where you're coming from, but in this case I feel a number of posters on this thread are overreacting. After reading through the thread-starter a few times, I have to say that the point, though put a bit clumsily, is perfectly reasonable...... I would hope that DH hasn't used the term disabled just to provoke, because that actually makes it worse! I don't class myself as falling into line with the "PC" brigade of loony lefties, who stamp on every innocent word as having subversive meanings, but to use an emotive term like that is going too far. The overall thread may be valid, as an opinion on the state of the record industry and its search for talent at any price, but you should have thought more about your choice of words before committing them to your posting. Michelle is fat, so what? Gareth has a stammer, so what? Will has a lisp, so what? They aren't worse people because of it, they are certainly not disabled for it, so please don't "attach label here"........ |
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TrishaB It is not a perfectly reasonable argument as these people are NOT disabled or handicapped. They just do not fit into a sterotypical image. There is a BIG difference.Serious here, for a change. DH actually has a point, that it seems as if talent is secondary to a USP (Unique Selling Proposition): that it becomes impossible to win a show like Pop Idol on talent alone. I think that is perfectly valid, even if stated a bit dramatically, and it's unfair to slate him for putting forward what is, when you read it objectively, a perfectly reasonable argument. These people have never had to deal with any of the problems that real disabled people have to cope with on a daily basis and to even suggest this is an insult. I can't believe how ridiculous some people on this board can be. Michelle is Fat so what. You may not like her or think she is a crap singer which is fine but don't label her disabled as she is not. It isn't that hard to live with being Fat and if you don't like well you can loose the weight. People with real disabilities don't have this choice. |
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The moon
Posts: 2,476
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Battery Chicken I agree that the choice of words was both overdramatic and distasteful, but I am looking at the underlying message. What (I think) DH is trying to say is that you need more than talent to win a competition like Pop Idol. It is not a perfectly reasonable argument as these people are NOT disabled or handicapped. They just do not fit into a sterotypical image. There is a BIG difference. These people have never had to deal with any of the problems that real disabled people have to cope with on a daily basis and to even suggest this is an insult. I can't believe how ridiculous some people on this board can be. Michelle is Fat so what. You may not like her or think she is a crap singer which is fine but don't label her disabled as she is not. It isn't that hard to live with being Fat and if you don't like well you can loose the weight. People with real disabilities don't have this choice. Certainly, disability shouldn't be used as a random, or light, example to start a thread on a PI forum. I imagine most people would agree with that. The premise itself is interesting, though, if you try to look beyond the way it was expressed. Btw, my double negative was misinterpreted, above. I didn't say Michelle shouldn't have won PI: quite the reverse. |
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TrishaB Well I think you are a very generous person I agree that the choice of words was both overdramatic and distasteful, but I am looking at the underlying message. What (I think) DH is trying to say is that you need more than talent to win a competition like Pop Idol. Certainly, disability shouldn't be used as a random, or light, example to start a thread on a PI forum. I imagine most people would agree with that. The premise itself is interesting, though, if you try to look beyond the way it was expressed. Btw, my double negative was misinterpreted, above. I didn't say Michelle shouldn't have won PI: quite the reverse. ![]() Maybe you know the original poster and have more insight into their views but the post did read as somewhat ridicilous to me. It can be difficult to get across your intentions sometimes in writing as everything can seem black and white. I think you make a valid point but the original poster should never have used the words handicap or disability. Does nobody remember the blind girl who didn't even get into the final 100. Being disabled didn't help her much. Rightly so in my opinion if you don't have the talent you shouldn't be there. |
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Watching wind farms
Posts: 24,049
|
What I find most interesting about this thread now is that the thoughtful Ms/Mr DH has not been back to post on this thread....
I think it has been a bit of a wind up...knowing that people would argue the point.
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wales
Posts: 17,703
|
May I add a different perspective here?
As a mother of a disabled child, I have to say that many people who have no experience of living with a disablity (which includes myself, before my son was born), overreact in some way to disabilites (eg too much sympathy, embarassment) and I just wonder whether this has played a part with some of the posters here. Disabilities, for those living with them, are just part of everyday life and we don't wish them to be viewed as unnatural in any way - IMO that only gives discrimination the ideal environment to flourish. I feel that Gareth and Will ARE mildly disabled (and don't forget that the original poster put the word in quotes - IMO implying that they knew that was a questionable label), in that their speech is impaired - BUT SO WHAT - it's no big deal and neither should the label 'disabled'. Michelle, I would not regard as disabled but definitely different and somewhat at a disadvantage in today's image-obsessed society, due to her looks. I also think that hackles were raised by the pathetic post early on (which I'm sure no-one needs me to refer to) which was obviously designed to provoke. Peace to all, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Watching wind farms
Posts: 24,049
|
Quote:
Originally posted by T--J Just to add yet a different perspective. My father was physically disabled as a child and as an adult. As an able bodied child of someone who was ridiculed via jibes and language (not when he was a child, may I add...but more so as an adult in the world of adults) I was infuriated at uneccessarily language...back in those days it was 'cripple and handicapped'...my father ardently challeneged such labelling. He insisted on his situation as one of 'disability' - that was in the 70s...you can imagine what that was like then. Thankfully, he was a clever man and could rise above such nonsense, however, I wish that my father had just been 'fat' or had a speech difficulty...that level of 'disability' would have been preferable to a very real and very disabling condition.May I add a different perspective here? As a mother of a disabled child, I have to say that many people who have no experience of living with a disablity (which includes myself, before my son was born), overreact in some way to disabilites (eg too much sympathy, embarassment) and I just wonder whether this has played a part with some of the posters here. Disabilities, for those living with them, are just part of everyday life and we don't wish them to be viewed as unnatural in any way - IMO that only gives discrimination the ideal environment to flourish. My work includes managing people who manage care for disabled people as well as older people etc...I am neither overly sympathetic, neither am I embarrased by disability but I get flaming angry when I see such flippantly used tripe, such as DH spouted when there is a world of real disability, often shunned and hidden and misinterpreted as has our friend DH. Thus, my professional and personal experience of disability is highly valid here. Regards |
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wales
Posts: 17,703
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZipGypsy But denying or being embarrased by, the very appropriate and IMO valid, labels such as disabled, handicapped and retarded only adds to those people being shunned and hidden from society. Use of these words as taunts are abhorent but probably inevitable by a small minority of people but if society sees and hears more about disabities (especially young children) then those people will be more accepted. ...but I get flaming angry when I see such flippantly used tripe, such as DH spouted when there is a world of real disability, often shunned and hidden and misinterpreted as has our friend DH. ![]() IMO, it's not the words(labels) that hurt people, it's the attitude behind the words and the more open we are, the more attitudes will change. |
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Watching wind farms
Posts: 24,049
|
Quote:
Originally posted by T--J It is both the attitude and the semantics loaded in the language we use which can be offensive and discriminatory. Language comes with a history of it's own. That's why, IMO, the use of language is is highly reflective of how we percieve and think in collective societal groups and as individuals. I think that, yes, some language usage has become stigmatised, such as 'retarded' - originally, I believe, a diagnostic medical term. However, 'handicapped' dervices from the term to 'go hand in cap' - it pertains to having to rely on charity for existence. That is one 'label' which has been highlighted as very negative amongst disabled groups due to the 'meaning' behind the word. Perhaps it is the use of such language which perpetuates the stigmatising of certain groups...keeping them in their categorical places in the semantic world of how we undertstand things to be. The loaded history behind such language is, IMO, what continues to shun. Changing how we think, changes how we act (which includes our language use) - that is a basis for cognitive behavioural therapy, for example. I believe it is pertinent to how we develop our collective opinions in society and thus, plays a part in how we evolve.But denying or being embarrased by, the very appropriate and IMO valid, labels such as disabled, handicapped and retarded only adds to those people being shunned and hidden from society. Use of these words as taunts are abhorent but probably inevitable by a small minority of people but if society sees and hears more about disabities (especially young children) then those people will be more accepted. ![]() IMO, it's not the words(labels) that hurt people, it's the attitude behind the words and the more open we are, the more attitudes will change. I take your point, however, that being precious about how we deal with certain issues can be misinterpreted as being overly PC or whatever. That is entirely unhelpful to people who wish to be as fully included in society as anyone has a right to be. I have said this before on numerous occasions...it's about not being offensive, not about being tokenistic. People shouldn't be embarrassed about disability but we have a long way to go before those of us who are not disabled (the assumed majority) are as aware of pertinent issues as is necessary. |
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wales
Posts: 17,703
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZipGypsy I've never really had cause to think where that word originated and therefore never found it offensive but with that history, it is definitely undesirable (but funnily enough, one I never use although my husband does). I have no problem with the word retarded though, as it is a medical term and a fact.However, 'handicapped' dervices from the term to 'go hand in cap' - it pertains to having to rely on charity for existence. That is one 'label' which has been highlighted as very negative amongst disabled groups due to the 'meaning' behind the word. Quote:
People shouldn't be embarrassed about disability but we have a long way to go before those of us who are not disabled (the assumed majority) are as aware of pertinent issues as is necessary.
Definitely. - I think it needs to begin with more integration in childhood.
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Watching wind farms
Posts: 24,049
|
Quote:
Originally posted by T--J Absolutely...it needs to begin right from day dot. Definitely. - I think it needs to begin with more integration in childhood.
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Watching wind farms
Posts: 24,049
|
LOL....I made a mistake above folks...and it's too late to edit the post..
For 'hand in cap'...read 'cap in hand'....
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 944
|
Quote:
Originally posted by T--J Well I am also a mother of a disabled child. I totally disagree with what you have said. I am completely aware of what it is like to live with a disability and I can't get away from it. I will never have a normal living environment nor can I ever pretend to have one. What I need is people to understand disability and have a bit of patience and kindness. Kidding on that nothing is wrong does nothing to help me. My son's condition permates every aspect of our life. I am not ashamed of my son and would never deny what he is I adore him but he has many difficulties that are totally trivilased by the intitial poster. I wish my son just had a lisp/stutter/or was over weight.May I add a different perspective here? As a mother of a disabled child, I have to say that many people who have no experience of living with a disablity (which includes myself, before my son was born), overreact in some way to disabilites (eg too much sympathy, embarassment) and I just wonder whether this has played a part with some of the posters here. Disabilities, for those living with them, are just part of everyday life and we don't wish them to be viewed as unnatural in any way - IMO that only gives discrimination the ideal environment to flourish. I feel that Gareth and Will ARE mildly disabled (and don't forget that the original poster put the word in quotes - IMO implying that they knew that was a questionable label), in that their speech is impaired - BUT SO WHAT - it's no big deal and neither should the label 'disabled'. Michelle, I would not regard as disabled but definitely different and somewhat at a disadvantage in today's image-obsessed society, due to her looks. I also think that hackles were raised by the pathetic post early on (which I'm sure no-one needs me to refer to) which was obviously designed to provoke. Peace to all, eh?
I am gob smacked that you think either Will or Gareth have disabilities whether mild or not. Will certainly doesn't and Gareth just takes longer to say things than most. Come and meet child and you would realise how trivial these are. So you are adding your own perspective but not that of all mothers of disabled children. |
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,101
|
It is patently clear that Gareth ( I can stutter to order) and Michelle gained a lot of votes as a result of positive discrimination.
They should do a duet. How about.. "Trail of the lonesome pine" |
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Watching wind farms
Posts: 24,049
|
Quote:
Originally posted by pistonbroke Patently clear? Upon what do you base that opinion? And it is just that...an opinion...not any kind of established fact.
It is patently clear that Gareth ( I can stutter to order) and Michelle gained a lot of votes as a result of positive discrimination. They should do a duet. How about.. "Trail of the lonesome pine" |
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,101
|
It's clear that Gareth had a stutter and that Michelle had a size problem
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Watching wind farms
Posts: 24,049
|
Quote:
Originally posted by pistonbroke You said that what was patently clear, was that Gareth and Michelle 'gained a lot of sympathy votes as a result of positive discrimination'.It's clear that Gareth had a stutter and that Michelle had a size problem What is now patently clear is that you cannot provide any evidence of this. It is all based on your opinion. Unless you do have other information? |
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,943
|
Quote:
Originally posted by pistonbroke Yes and Stevie wonder is blind , but does that make him any less a star ? When did Gareth's stutter ever have any effect on his performance , When did Michelle's weight prevent her from achieving more than you will ever dream of ?
It's clear that Gareth had a stutter and that Michelle had a size problem |
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wales
Posts: 17,703
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Battery Chicken You've got me completely wrong. Rarely a day goes by where I don't think that I would give just about anything in exchange for my son not to have a disability (although I too, am not ashamed - I just long for a 'normal life'). Our lives too, are completely taken over by his disability but it's our normal life - one to which we have had to become accustomed and regularly resent when we see other people complaining about what to us, are trivial things. But I do find that a lot of people offer patience and kindness. Well I am also a mother of a disabled child. I totally disagree with what you have said. I am completely aware of what it is like to live with a disability and I can't get away from it. I will never have a normal living environment nor can I ever pretend to have one. What I need is people to understand disability and have a bit of patience and kindness. Kidding on that nothing is wrong does nothing to help me. My son's condition permates every aspect of our life. I am not ashamed of my son and would never deny what he is I adore him ... I wish my son just had a lisp/stutter/or was over weight. Quote:
...but he has many difficulties that are totally trivilased by the intitial poster...
I had no feeling that he trivialised my son's disabilities - IMO, he overdramatised things.Quote:
...I am gob smacked that you think either Will or Gareth have disabilities whether mild or not. Will certainly doesn't and Gareth just takes longer to say things than most. Come and meet child and you would realise how trivial these are...
I gave my opinion and that's your opinion about Gareth/Will but I refuse to be drawn into a discussion about whose child has the most severe disablilty. Quote:
...So you are adding your own perspective but not that of all mothers of disabled children.
I didn't suggest I was.
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: next to tv
Posts: 723
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZipGypsy ZipGypsy you are so right. DH is sitting back and laughing... It is easy to start a thread willy nilly, or simply to get people going. Sometimes people like him/her have the courage to continue their input throughout the thread, being true to their beliefs or views. This forum is made up of a mini-cross section of the community, which is what makes it interesting. You have to remember that there are trouble makers around, just like in the school playground. The best thing to do is to ignore them. He/she is probably are thrilled that the thread has been so active.What I find most interesting about this thread now is that the thoughtful Ms/Mr DH has not been back to post on this thread.... I think it has been a bit of a wind up...knowing that people would argue the point.
There have been some emotive and interesting points made, but as a result of a throw away statement by an idiot .!!!!???????? Ignore him / her - the thread will fade away onto page 2,3,4,......................... He/she is a coward.
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,878
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZipGypsy how about when talking about the show with people who weren't viewers, they would say 'is the fat girl still in? Oh, I want her to win' - without hearing her sing a (nasal) note.....most of these people will have tuned in and voted in the final.
Patently clear? Upon what do you base that opinion? And it is just that...an opinion...not any kind of established fact. |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:32.


It is rather a lovely image, yes. Let's raise our glass (glasses? Am I seeing double?) to the compassionate GBP. And no, I am not being sarcastic. I still feel that the point is valid, even if DH didn't put it quite as beautifully as you have.
I DO think that Michelle deserved to win, (apart from Sam, ofc). Many others share that opinion as well as those who think Michelle was a poor winner. This is another of these opinion and perspective situations. I don't find DH reasonable at all because I don't believe that positive discrimination played a part...not a big enough part to secure all those votes in any case.
- I think it needs to begin with more integration in childhood.