Political Correctness and Halloween Costumes

vIRL Nightmare

New member
Jul 30, 2013
117
0
0
Spot1990 said:
vIRL Nightmare said:
In my mind it comes down to this. There are many kinds of people in the world and you can kind of generalize them in 2 over arching groups. The chill people who know how to relax and take a joke and are accepting of many things and people even if they themselves don't necessarily participate, then there are the people that can't let anyone have fun or relax and believe anything against their perfect little ideal is evil and wrong and no one is allowed.

People fail to understand that they don't need to, nor do we want them to, be offended for some one elses sake and blow things out of proportion. But what do I know.
Well considering my stance is simply freedom of expression extends to expressing that you are offended and that while you are by no means required to back down or change what you said or did if you offened people you should at least consider whether or not you're ok with offending these people, could you just as easily not offend these people and after examining your behaviour then decide what you want to do, one way or the other, because we should all try to do our best to make sure we treat others with dignity and respect and that is just as much a part of growing up as learning to let things go, I'd argue there's at least three types of people and probably many more because people are generally complex and there's many grey areas in the world.
If I portrayed offense that was not my goal. I'm not really offended by the situation at all and just tend to be overly blunt when making a statement.

I certainly agree with the general direction I think you think in. That said I need to be honest with you, I stopped caring if I've offended people. I have my past horror stories, most of us do, and this isn't the place I give a long sob story. However when I was growing up it was "cool" to mistreat people like me, probably a lot of us here, for what we were. I got over it. The difference I'm seeing here is that where in my situation I could have, "sucked it up and stand up for myself" People are interpreting this as bullying people who can't do that. The intention I find admirable, but the act is as I've said a teenage Soap Opera in execution. I'm not saying go out and be a bigot and not care about the others around you, I realize my comment may lead one to believe that. I do believe however that there are a lot of people, in this very thread even to prove my point, that takes a very little issue like a Halloween costume and blows it out of proportion when there are much bigger and important issues that all this energy can be used for. As to the carrying about offending people comment I opened with, the fact that I exist offends loads of people. I accept this fact. We all should probably consider it at least and I continue on.
 

AgentNein

New member
Jun 14, 2008
1,476
0
0
nepheleim said:
AgentNein said:
It gives me (and others) every right however to call them insensitive assholes. And they have the right to have some sense knocked in them and understand why people may be bothered by this. Which looks like what happened here!
Ummm... no. Nobody has the right to knock sense into somebody (at least here, that means a good thumping) no matter how much you think they need it. Call them assholes, but physical violence isn't covered by the first amendment.
I think it's pretty clear I wasn't talking about actual violence.
 

TheWanderingFish

New member
May 1, 2013
41
0
0
TekMoney said:
TheWanderingFish said:
TekMoney said:
TheWanderingFish said:
Perhaps if the part of the population who wasn't effected by this costume, had stood up as well and said "Actually, I'm not bothered by it", then we would see a different result.
Yeah, the voice of the unaffected is the one we should be listening to here.
Why are the voices of the unaffected suddenly not worth as much as those who are affected? You cannot give certain people's opinions a greater weight than others; that would be unfair.
Because the unaffected lack the perspective to decide if they're offended or not. It's not happening to them.
In what way do they lack perspective? They may have a different perspective, but they do not lack one. It is because of this different perspective that they are not offended. I think perhaps 'unaffected' is the wrong word to use. This is more of an issue of those who were offended, and those who were not, with each group having valid reasons to hold their particular belief.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
It's a costume that's based off a horror movie trope, like many other costumes.

Had it been labeled "Psycho in Straitjacket", there wouldn't have been a care in the world about it. The people who labeled it should have been more careful. It's not hard to see why labeling it straight-up "Mental Patient" is stupid and offensive.
 

TheWanderingFish

New member
May 1, 2013
41
0
0
I think you mean the mentally ill who weren't offended rather than people who aren't affected by it? I think the point TekMonkey was making is if you're not part of the group that is supposedly being targeted/offended it's not really up to you to say what is and isn't offensive to that group. Of course you can have a view on it and think people are being too sensitive but unless you're part of the group you don't know how it makes them feel or why. If you do not have the experiences that a mental patient has had, felt the real discrimination they have felt then you won't know why something as seemingly innocuous as a poorly named Hallowe'en costume can be so upsetting to them. It might not seem bad to someone outside the group but to someone inside it it is part of a much bigger problem and that's why things like this can upset people.[/quote]

That is the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I communicated it poorly in my previous posts. I am just curious, out of the number of people who complained, how many were those afflicted with a mental illness and were genuinely upset, and how many were individuals who thought this is something they should be offended by on behalf of the aforementioned.
 

TekMoney

New member
Jun 30, 2013
92
0
0
Spot1990 said:
TheWanderingFish said:
TekMoney said:
TheWanderingFish said:
TekMoney said:
TheWanderingFish said:
Perhaps if the part of the population who wasn't effected by this costume, had stood up as well and said "Actually, I'm not bothered by it", then we would see a different result.
Yeah, the voice of the unaffected is the one we should be listening to here.
Why are the voices of the unaffected suddenly not worth as much as those who are affected? You cannot give certain people's opinions a greater weight than others; that would be unfair.
Because the unaffected lack the perspective to decide if they're offended or not. It's not happening to them.
In what way do they lack perspective? They may have a different perspective, but they do not lack one. It is because of this different perspective that they are not offended. I think perhaps 'unaffected' is the wrong word to use. This is more of an issue of those who were offended, and those who were not, with each group having valid reasons to hold their particular belief.
I think you mean the mentally ill who weren't offended rather than people who aren't affected by it? I think the point TekMonkey was making is if you're not part of the group that is supposedly being targeted/offended it's not really up to you to say what is and isn't offensive to that group. Of course you can have a view on it and think people are being too sensitive but unless you're part of the group you don't know how it makes them feel or why. If you do not have the experiences that a mental patient has had, felt the real discrimination they have felt then you won't know why something as seemingly innocuous as a poorly named Hallowe'en costume can be so upsetting to them. It might not seem bad to someone outside the group but to someone inside it it is part of a much bigger problem and that's why things like this can upset people.
Yep, you nailed my point for me, thank you. It's real easy to not be offended when you lack any sort of relative experience.
 

Relish in Chaos

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,660
0
0
MuffinMan74 said:
Relish in Chaos said:
I?m fine with the costume, since it looks like your typical horror film villain, but they shouldn?t have called it something so on-the-nose offensive as ?Mental Patient?. They should?ve called it something like ?Psycho Killer?
True but one of them was called Psycho Ward, so maybe Psycho Killer might still anger them who knows.
Yeah, but "ward" (in this context, at least, which is medical) still evokes images of mental patients. "Psycho killer" is more generic and explicitly states that they're not just mental, they're mental and a murderer. I know this sounds like silly semantics, though, but since "psychopathy" has pretty much been replaced by the layman's term for ASPD "sociopathy", the "psycho" part shouldn't be too controversial. There's even a film called Psycho that is still held up as a classic. Not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I'm just mentioning it.
 

nepheleim

New member
Sep 10, 2008
194
0
0
AgentNein said:
nepheleim said:
AgentNein said:
It gives me (and others) every right however to call them insensitive assholes. And they have the right to have some sense knocked in them and understand why people may be bothered by this. Which looks like what happened here!
Ummm... no. Nobody has the right to knock sense into somebody (at least here, that means a good thumping) no matter how much you think they need it. Call them assholes, but physical violence isn't covered by the first amendment.
I think it's pretty clear I wasn't talking about actual violence.
It might be a cultural thing, or slang, but you stated (and I don't know why I'm quoting since I have the quotes above) "They have the right to have some sense knocked in them", which is violence.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
spartan231490 said:
So no, freedom of expression=/=freedom of criticism doesn't make my argument self-contradictory, it makes your interpretation of my argument self-contradictory.
A shame it's based on you telling people not to be offended and then resorting to over-the-top outrage, validating my "interpretation."

No matter how much you backtrack, you got upset over people getting upset. You told others to do what you could not. And all things considered, it doesn't really matter who you were addressing it to specifically. It was still a double standard.

Sorry, bro.

By the way, it really wasn't hard to figure out that your post was on-topic. If you think that's the problem, you really do need to work on your own comprehension rather than telling others you thought it was obvious. It kinda was. That still doesn't change your reaction. Hell, your new recounting doesn't even jive with the article, which only cites criticism, not this demand that it be pulled you claim to be railing against.

And since you claim/don't seem to be against the right to criticism or outrage (which you have demonstrated yourself), this should be a non-issue, hmm?

As a matter of fact, if you're basing it on the original topic at hand, the issue was "criticism." If you are on-topic as you claim, then yes, you were talking about the broader group.

And I didn't even get in to the second half of your post, the part where you apparently try and accuse people here of a double-standard, but are trying to waffle and play both sides of the issue when another poster confronted you on it.

It'd be easier to just admit you overreacted, rather than trying to redefine your point several times.
 

TheKangaroos

New member
Jul 16, 2013
32
0
0
lacktheknack said:
It's a costume that's based off a horror movie trope, like many other costumes.

Had it been labeled "Psycho in Straitjacket", there wouldn't have been a care in the world about it. The people who labeled it should have been more careful. It's not hard to see why labeling it straight-up "Mental Patient" is stupid and offensive.
This is basically the crux of the matter. It's just some insensitive wording. Nobody should get too offended because although it is offensive, it's clearly not a result of someone's hate for 'mental patients', it's just crude wording from someone ignorant of 'mental' conditions.

It's right that the outfit got recalled, but they could just apologise, rename it and send it back out to stores without it making national news.
 

BoredRolePlayer

New member
Nov 9, 2010
727
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
Wait, how do you dress up as a mental patient? Just wear a straight jacket?

From the image in the linked article it just looks like a regular homicidal maniac get-up, nothing to link it to people with actual mental disabilities other than they're both human.

So I'm gonna have to say 'What's the big deal?' And that's coming from someone who has his fair share of experience with mentally disabled people.
I swear I remember seeing this in the US as Psyco Killer
 

BoredRolePlayer

New member
Nov 9, 2010
727
0
0
James Joseph Emerald said:
AccursedTheory said:
I see absolutely no problem with this.

It was a costume, based off of a common horror theme. Whoop-de-do.
I think that is the main problem with it. Not only is it saying "this is what mental patients look like", but it's also implying "mental patients are something to be terrified of" and strengthening the association of the mentally ill with 'other' monsters you commonly dress up as for Halloween.

Not to mention that merely having a 'costume' representing a certain group of people will dehumanise them:



It wasn't so long ago that this was an acceptable bit of fun, too.
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/190781-were-a-culture-not-a-costume

When you posted that I thought of this, times have "changed" but we still sterotype people and make costumes based on it dude.
 

White Lightning

New member
Feb 9, 2012
797
0
0
It's actually a little depressing to see this many people get this upset over a Halloween costume. It's just a Halloween costume, relax.

I think stuff like this is why a lot of people don't take the political correctness movement (or whatever you call it) more seriously, because they go bat shit crazy over something like a costume.
 

The Wooster

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
hazabaza1 said:
They probably should have renamed it to "bloodied psychopath" or something but I don't really have an issue with people dressing up as whatever.
That being said, do exercise some caution for what you dress up as. If you're going to a little kids party and you go in black face with a watermelon crown calling yourself "King of the Niggmatrons" then yeah there might be an issue.
I utterly lost it half way through that lest sentence. Good show.
 

soulfire130

New member
Jun 15, 2010
189
0
0
They didn't need to pull it. Just change the name. It's not that big of a deal. Just request a name change. -_-

There is too much uproar for something this small.
 

Jenvas1306

New member
May 1, 2012
446
0
0
some halloween costumes that might even be classic need some revision today. just think of all the folks going as native americans...
this 'mental patient' costume was simply named terribly and there you see how easy it is to cross the line.


btw, how do you like this type of costume?