ChatterBank1 min ago
Was this really meant to be offensive?
78 Answers
http://
Oh dear, oh dear someone has once again dared to speak without first checking for unintended insensitivities.
Although Ms Currie isn't my favourite person by a long stretch of the imagination, I don't think she meant any harm when she said what she said.
/// One reply, from @mbisace described the comment as "singularly the most offensive thing I have seen on Twitter". ///
If that is so, I wonder how long it will be before the Police arrest Ms Currie?
Oh dear, oh dear someone has once again dared to speak without first checking for unintended insensitivities.
Although Ms Currie isn't my favourite person by a long stretch of the imagination, I don't think she meant any harm when she said what she said.
/// One reply, from @mbisace described the comment as "singularly the most offensive thing I have seen on Twitter". ///
If that is so, I wonder how long it will be before the Police arrest Ms Currie?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ellipsis
Furthermore, I think what Ms Currie meant was, "Italians are gorgeous, even the disabled ones".
The wellie comparison isn't quite right...it WOULD be, if she had said "Italians are gorgeous even when they're sitting down" because that would be a temporary thing that will change.
The nearest I can come to explaining what I mean is...err...the difference between the Spanish verbs 'estar' and 'ser' (we don't have an equivalent in English).
One verb describes a person as they are, and the other describes a person as they are at that particular point.
Please, dear God - I need a Spanish speaker to help me out here!!!
Furthermore, I think what Ms Currie meant was, "Italians are gorgeous, even the disabled ones".
The wellie comparison isn't quite right...it WOULD be, if she had said "Italians are gorgeous even when they're sitting down" because that would be a temporary thing that will change.
The nearest I can come to explaining what I mean is...err...the difference between the Spanish verbs 'estar' and 'ser' (we don't have an equivalent in English).
One verb describes a person as they are, and the other describes a person as they are at that particular point.
Please, dear God - I need a Spanish speaker to help me out here!!!
"wellies are a choice - wheelchairs are not."
Unfortunately I have to disagree with you once again. I have lost count of the number of people I have seen in wheelchairs/mobility scooters who, once arrived at their destination, leap out of them like young kids, run around the shopping aisles then sink back into them, purporting to be of the afflicted.
Unfortunately I have to disagree with you once again. I have lost count of the number of people I have seen in wheelchairs/mobility scooters who, once arrived at their destination, leap out of them like young kids, run around the shopping aisles then sink back into them, purporting to be of the afflicted.
If you can't see immediately see why the Jew/wheelchair comparison is not valid, I doubt a long post is going to demonstrate it. But let's try this for starters:
> "He was really generous, even though he was a Jew".
This is saying that an individual is different to an (implied) racist stereotype.
> "Italians are gorgeous even in wheelchairs"
This is not mentioning an individual at all - the only stereotype being promoted (not even implied) is "Italians are gorgeous".
> "He was really generous, even though he was a Jew".
This is saying that an individual is different to an (implied) racist stereotype.
> "Italians are gorgeous even in wheelchairs"
This is not mentioning an individual at all - the only stereotype being promoted (not even implied) is "Italians are gorgeous".
Ellipsis
Dunno..
"He was gorgeous, even though he was in a wheelchair", implies (to me) that people in wheelchairs are by default, ugly.
To be honest, I simply think it came across as cringey and patronising. I personally am not offended by it (I'm not in a wheelchair and not Italian), but I could imagine someone wheelchair-bound thinking, "Why even mention wheelchairs? Gorgeous people are gorgeous sitting down or standing up".
Dunno..
"He was gorgeous, even though he was in a wheelchair", implies (to me) that people in wheelchairs are by default, ugly.
To be honest, I simply think it came across as cringey and patronising. I personally am not offended by it (I'm not in a wheelchair and not Italian), but I could imagine someone wheelchair-bound thinking, "Why even mention wheelchairs? Gorgeous people are gorgeous sitting down or standing up".
> "He was gorgeous, even though he was in a wheelchair", implies (to me) that people in wheelchairs are by default, ugly.
That's not what she said though. She did not juxtapose an individual with an implied group stereotype. Only you are doing that!
Let's try a different tack. Which of these two statements would you say are the commonly accepted position by normal, decent members of society:
1) People in wheelchairs are ugly
2) Wheelchairs are unglamorous
I hope you'd agree it was statement 2. But if that was the case, why would people jump to the conclusion that Currie was implying statement 1 rather than statement 2? I would suggest that people who jumped to that conclusion either:
* had it in for Currie or
* themselves believed statement 1 more strongly than statement 2 or
* look more for politically incorrectness than the actual truth or
* some combination of the above.
That's not what she said though. She did not juxtapose an individual with an implied group stereotype. Only you are doing that!
Let's try a different tack. Which of these two statements would you say are the commonly accepted position by normal, decent members of society:
1) People in wheelchairs are ugly
2) Wheelchairs are unglamorous
I hope you'd agree it was statement 2. But if that was the case, why would people jump to the conclusion that Currie was implying statement 1 rather than statement 2? I would suggest that people who jumped to that conclusion either:
* had it in for Currie or
* themselves believed statement 1 more strongly than statement 2 or
* look more for politically incorrectness than the actual truth or
* some combination of the above.
