Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area

Ha-chan (agent_hyatt) wrote in unfunny_fandom,
@ 2012-02-26 16:49:00

Lessons from bronies: Removing ableist stereotypes is intolerant!
Remember the backlash when an episode of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic portrayed fan-favorite Ditzy/"Derpy" as "humorously" mentally challenged? Well, the concerns were heard, and the voice changed!

Aaaaand now some bronies are crying "ruined FOREVER!". To the tune of "not liking our insensitivity is intolerant!"

So, everyone who can now watch the clip without cringeing, you're harshing someone's squee, and that's terrible.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	anarchicq 2012-02-26 11:13 pm UTC (link)
	Not a brony, not particularly a fan of the show, but having seen both versions, I personally find the erasure of a disability more ablest than anything. I watched both clips side by side and yes, they fixed her eyes up in some shots as well. Now she's just like everyone else. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	agent_hyatt 2012-02-26 11:18 pm UTC (link)
	The problem with the original is that she wasn't meant to have an actual disability, just conform to the joking idea of one. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

anarchicq
2012-02-26 11:32 pm UTC (link)

I saw a flawed pony with a slight disability. All the ponies are flawed and so too is this one who also happens to have a disability.

There will always be dicks online who point and laugh at shit but the show is for kids and it might make them feel good that there's a character that's different like them.

Kids are smarter than people give them credit for and changing it could send another message to them that there's something wrong with them.

And, as a side note, how is that pony any different than this? If anything they turned her into a classic cartoon trope and they weren't trying to be malicious or hurtful.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	agent_hyatt 2012-02-26 11:37 pm UTC (link)
	You saw a pony with a slight disability. Other people saw a background pony with a possible disability that was used solely as a joke and a stereotype. They had a problem with it, and expressed their problems well enough that the show's staff understood where they were coming from and decided to honor their requests to remove what was considered offensive. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

anarchicq, 2012-02-26 11:41 pm UTC

agent_hyatt, 2012-02-26 11:45 pm UTC

anarchicq, 2012-02-27 12:03 am UTC

agent_hyatt, 2012-02-27 12:14 am UTC

cmdr_zoom, 2012-02-27 02:17 am UTC

iamnotyourmuse, 2012-02-27 03:56 am UTC

felinephoenix, 2012-03-01 04:41 pm UTC

mneiai
2012-02-26 11:47 pm UTC (link)

Do you honestly think we should base characterization on the things they did in the 80s? O.o Or that no "classic" tropes are ever wrong? This is tv, intent doesn't matter, content does, and when you make someone with a possible disability the continual butt of jokes, that's wrong. I've only seen a handful of episodes, but that's how it came off to me. They could have also done a touching episode where she saves the day despite personal challenges and whatnot, then treated her with more sensitivity, but this is what they decided on.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

anarchicq, 2012-02-27 12:08 am UTC

seiberwing, 2012-02-27 05:52 am UTC

ecchaniz0r, 2012-02-27 07:32 pm UTC

Here, have a big glass of STFU

sandglass
2012-02-27 12:12 am UTC (link)

1. "Derpy" is an ableist name and throughout the MLP:FIM fandom many disabled people have made it clear that they have had derpy used as an insult to them because of their disability.

2. The brony version of the Derpy character has been incredibly ableist from the start based just on her eyes. They've slung every ableist slur at her while claiming that they like her--because clearly the feelings of the disabled don't count.

3. Derpy only shows up to screw up hugely and be yelled at by a main character. How is that a positive portrayal? And don't forget this is a didactic show where if someone does something wrong it's pretty much always as part of a lesson, so not correcting this ableist bullying is basically saying it's okay.

4. Most people were asking just for a name change and for a positive portrayal, not for her disability to be erased. Hasbro did that on their own.

5. Her voice is very stereotypically disabled--even though her original disability (if you consider strabismus a disability) isn't necessarily connected to any speaking problems.

6. MLP:FIM already has a shaky track record with ableism after an episode that made a joke of a character having a panic attack, so people are hardly to blame for assuming that they didn't mean well.

7. All of this has been dealt with already, but thanks for expecting people to rehash it for you.

Fuck the idea that now it's so horrible that she's just like everyone else when the only time a (physically) disabled pony has been featured in the show has been to screw up and be yelled at without any display that yelling at someone with a disability is wrong. The whole point of her character has been to laugh at disability, but it's somehow ableist to get rid of that? No, it is NOT better to have an ableist portrayal than no portrayal at all. I'd rather be ignored than have someone throw sand in my face, thank you very much.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Here, have a big glass of STFU anarchicq 2012-02-27 12:29 am UTC (link)
	Yes, I knew all that, I've been following this since your(?) post and the letter writing campaign and everything. I just ...I don't know, have humour in my disabilities? Think stressing out about a gag on the internet doesn't do good things for my health? Don't think you can change everyone's mind? Think SJ has gotten out of hand? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Here, have a big glass of STFU sandglass 2012-02-27 12:49 am UTC (link)
	Haha no. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here, have a big glass of STFU -

anarchicq, 2012-02-27 12:51 am UTC

Re: Here, have a big glass of STFU -

cyndra_falin, 2012-02-27 02:41 am UTC

Re: Here, have a big glass of STFU -

sandglass, 2012-02-27 03:36 am UTC

Re: Here, have a big glass of STFU -

ecchaniz0r, 2012-02-27 07:33 pm UTC

	Re: Here, have a big glass of STFU phosfate 2012-02-27 05:44 am UTC (link)
	Please tell me you're not about to say "political correctness gone mad." (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here, have a big glass of STFU -

roachspit, 2012-02-28 06:50 am UTC

	Re: Here, have a big glass of STFU sadisticferret 2012-02-27 09:14 pm UTC (link)
	Standing fucking ovation. (Reply to this)(Parent)

ekaterinv
2012-02-27 03:17 am UTC (link)

Her entire characterization was that she had some unspecified "disability", and they gave her a name that is an ableist slur, and made fun of her, and that was IT.

She was a caricature. To be laughed at. Because it's funny to laugh at disabled people, and disabled people are their disability and nothing else.

The idea that the writers who created that caricature would have cared to make her a character is naive in the extreme.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	bwthree 2012-02-27 06:51 am UTC (link)
	I can't speak for any other PWD, but if my only choices are "disabled characters existing solely to be the butt of hateful jokes" and "no disabled characters at all", I think I'd prefer erasure. It doesn't help, but at the very least it's not doing active harm. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	eleutheria 2012-02-27 01:41 pm UTC (link)
	+1 from this PWD. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	zellieh 2012-02-29 12:30 pm UTC (link)
	+1 here, too. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

felinephoenix, 2012-03-01 04:42 pm UTC

	Re: Here, have a big glass of STFU sepiamagpie 2012-02-27 07:26 am UTC (link)
	If 'everyone else' means not being named with a slur, that's okay with me. (Reply to this)(Parent)

chikane
2012-02-27 08:48 am UTC (link)

I personally find the erasure of a disability more ablest than anything.

Are you one of those people that argue that a homophobic portrayal of a gay character (who of course ends up murdered for his gayness, which turns out is his fault) is totally ok and that complaining about it is somehow worse than having such a character because OMGERASURE?

Because that's what you're doing. That's the level your argument is on. Good job being a walking, breathing logical fallacy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

anarchicq
2012-02-27 09:02 am UTC (link)

No.

Of course people shouldn't be murdered/killed off because they're gay and of course being gay isn't a choice and certainly not anyone's fault. I would have problems with the gay-bashing/murdering characters, the characters calling the homosexual character derogatory names and so forth.

BUT I also find it annoying when someone who is not part of a thing (gay/non-white/disabled) gets offended on the part of the people who ARE that thing. As a straight girl I have less of a right to get upset about the portrayal of gays on the media then actual gays because I have not lived as they have lived or faced the same stereotypes, bigotry or misunderstandings.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	chikane 2012-02-27 09:22 am UTC (link)
	BUT I also find it annoying when someone who is not part of a thing (gay/non-white/disabled) gets offended Most of the people that complained were "part of the thing". It's interesting how people immediately pretend otherwise, though. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sepiamagpie 2012-02-27 09:29 am UTC (link)
	You know a lot of the people who are hurt by the Derpy thing are actually disabled, right? IN FACT, some people disagreeing with you right now are disabled! Sandglass, for instance. Who you kept dismissing. Just throwing that out there, defender of the derp. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

sandglass, 2012-02-27 09:45 am UTC

sepiamagpie, 2012-02-27 09:48 am UTC

cmdr_zoom, 2012-02-27 11:37 am UTC

wankaholic, 2012-02-28 03:02 am UTC

ekaterinv, 2012-02-28 03:33 am UTC

anarchicq, 2012-02-27 05:20 pm UTC

sepiamagpie, 2012-02-27 05:45 pm UTC

roachspit, 2012-02-27 05:58 pm UTC

sepiamagpie, 2012-02-27 06:01 pm UTC

phosfate, 2012-02-27 06:04 pm UTC

roachspit, 2012-02-28 02:32 am UTC

sepiamagpie, 2012-02-27 06:02 pm UTC

sepiamagpie, 2012-02-27 06:03 pm UTC

ekaterinv, 2012-02-27 10:39 pm UTC

	ekaterinv 2012-02-27 09:33 am UTC (link)
	I'm physically disabled -- am I allowed to have an opinion about this? Or are you, as self-appointed arbiter of who's allowed to be upset by things, and what they're allowed to be upset by, not going to allow that? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

anarchicq, 2012-02-27 05:29 pm UTC

ekaterinv, 2012-02-27 10:32 pm UTC

anarchicq, 2012-02-27 10:51 pm UTC

cyndra_falin, 2012-02-27 11:05 pm UTC

ekaterinv, 2012-02-28 12:06 am UTC

kannaophelia, 2012-02-28 01:29 am UTC

mmanurere, 2012-02-28 03:53 am UTC

derryderrydown, 2012-02-28 04:49 pm UTC

	phosfate 2012-02-27 04:28 pm UTC (link)
	Why don't you make a list of comm members who are allowed to be offended by this particular topic, and post it for us? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ecchaniz0r, 2012-02-27 07:34 pm UTC

phosfate, 2012-02-27 07:37 pm UTC

mindset, 2012-02-27 08:17 pm UTC

phosfate, 2012-02-27 08:22 pm UTC

cmdr_zoom, 2012-02-28 12:43 am UTC

phosfate, 2012-02-28 02:26 am UTC

seiberwing, 2012-02-27 09:48 pm UTC

sandglass, 2012-02-27 10:16 pm UTC

spawn_of_kong, 2012-02-28 12:53 am UTC

sandglass, 2012-02-28 06:47 pm UTC

lied_ohne_worte, 2012-02-28 09:58 pm UTC

sorchar
2012-02-28 03:27 am UTC (link)

I call BS. Yeah, it's annoying when someone gets offended on someone else's behalf. But that is not the only reason someone would get offended. Maybe they just think something's offensive. You're allowed to be offended by something even if it's not targeting you. Really.

And in that vein, the notion that "being gay isn't a choice and isn't anyone's fault" is, actually, pretty offensive. It implies that it's something that blamed needs to be placed for.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

anarchicq, 2012-02-28 04:16 am UTC

moljn, 2012-02-29 10:21 am UTC

zellieh
2012-02-29 12:38 pm UTC (link)

As someone who is 'part of that thing', I am here to tell you that that portrayal was offensive, the name was offensive, and I would far rather have nothing than have a portrayal that excuses hate crimes against disabled people as 'just a joke'. Because calling someone names and pointing and laughing at them for their disability is bullying, not harmless fun, and it is not okay.

Also, being referred to as a 'thing'? Ties into a long, ugly history of dehumanising people with disabilities in order to justify discrimination and hate crimes against us. It's offensive as hell. Don't do it again.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

napalmnacey, 2012-03-06 01:38 pm UTC

	thoms 2012-02-28 12:43 am UTC (link)
	Ungulata? Is that you? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mad_teacup 2012-02-28 01:44 am UTC (link)
	But Ungulata is a second generation hard-core feminist!! An Equal Rights Feminist!! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

thoms, 2012-02-28 02:47 am UTC

(Read comments) -

Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map