halloween costumes removed due to offending the mentally ill

[the_ultimate_evil]

Asda and Tesco withdraw 'psycho' patient outfits
Comments (1214)
Asda product page Asda offered its "sincere apologies" for the offence it caused

Is it wrong to jokily call someone 'mental'?

Supermarket chains Tesco and Asda have withdrawn Halloween outfits featuring mental health issues from sale.

Asda's "mental patient fancy dress costume" is no longer available, and Tesco followed suit by removing its "psycho ward" outfit.

Following criticism, both stores apologised and agreed to make donations to the mental health charity, Mind.

The charity, which complained that such costumes "fuel" stigma, will receive £25,000 from Asda.

Tesco has not said how much it will donate.

The £20 Asda outfit included ragged clothing, fake blood, a mask and a fake meat cleaver while Tesco's orange boiler suit came with a plastic jaw restraint and offered to "complete the look" with a machete.

Online retailer Amazon had also advertised the "psycho ward" outfit, but later said the costume was "not available".
'Unacceptable error'

Paul Farmer, Chief Executive of Mind: "This really went way beyond the line of acceptability"

A Tesco spokesperson said: "We're really sorry for any offence this has caused and we are removing this product from sale."

In a statement on Wednesday evening, Asda, which is owned by US retail giant Walmart, said the sale had been a "completely unacceptable error".

“Dear @asda, how on earth did you come to the conclusion that this is an appropriate fancy dress costume? Disgraceful”

Katie Dalton Mental health charity Gofal

"[The costume] should never have been sold and it was withdrawn as soon as it was brought to our attention."

Asda added: "We're deeply sorry one of our fancy dress costumes has upset people."

It is understood the costume had been on sale through Asda's clothing outlet George for two days, before being withdrawn from sale on Wednesday morning following a complaint from a customer.

Asda said the product had been removed from the website in the afternoon but the relevant page remained visible for a few hours.

It disappeared after the criticism on Twitter started to emerge.

An Asda spokeswoman confirmed £25,000 would be donated to Mind.

Meanwhile, online auction site eBay confirmed it had taken "immediate action" to remove items advertising similar costumes and apologised for any offence caused.

A spokesman said: "The listings are being assessed and removed and no future listings of this nature will be allowed."
Tesco's Tesco had offered a "psycho ward" costume online

Former Downing Street director of communications Alastair Campbell, who has written about his experiences with mental health issues, branded their sale by established companies as "unacceptable"

Speaking to BBC London, he said: "We are trying to change attitudes towards mental illness so people do not stigmatise it and something like this comes along and it just reminds you we are basically still in the Dark Ages.

Alastair Campbell: "Something like this comes along and it just reminds you we are basically still in the Dark Ages"

"We are still in the Dark Ages if some of the biggest companies in this country, Tesco, Asda and Amazon think that it's acceptable to sell something like this."

Elsewhere, Katie Dalton, of Welsh mental health charity Gofal, wrote on Twitter: "Dear @asda, how on earth did you come to the conclusion that this is an appropriate fancy dress costume? Disgraceful."

Former footballer Stan Collymore, who has had a well-documented battle with depression, also criticised Asda for using a "stereotype".

"Do you actually realise how many people are hanging themselves because of being frightened of the stigma?" he tweeted.

The charity Rethink Mental Illness also took to Twitter to say it was "stunned" by the costume's description, but later thanked Asda "for responding" to the "concerns".
'Terrifying Halloween option'

Sue Baker from Mind told BBC Radio 5 live that the worst thing about the costume was it reinforced outdated stigma about people with mental health illness.
Jane Hughes from mental health charity Rethink Mental Illness Jane Hughes from charity Rethink Mental Illness: "I was staggered when I saw the advertisements"

"Some of the worst myths that fuel this stigma is the assumption that we're going to be dangerous, knife-wielding maniacs and that is simply not the case."

She added: "The stigma can be life-limiting and life-threatening because people don't think they can talk to anybody and sadly for some people they take the option of not being with us anymore."
'Blessing in disguise'

The internet link to the website page where Asda's costume was being sold used the words "zombie fancy dress costume".

But the product was titled "mental patient fancy dress costume" on the page itself.

The product details read: "Everyone will be running away from you in fear in this mental patient fancy dress costume... it's a terrifying Halloween option."

Ms Baker had also called for Tesco and Amazon to withdraw the "Psycho Ward" outfit from their websites.

“This might be a blessing in disguise because it is bringing issues of stigma in mental health to public scrutiny”

Dr Simon Williams Northwest University, Chicago

Neil Saunders, of retail research agency Conlumino, said such a "mistake in naming a product" was "inevitable" due to the huge number of items sold by major retailers.

Responding to news about the costumes, some Twitter users posted pictures of themselves in normal clothes, which one described as "my #mentalhealth outfit for the day".

Another tweeted: "@asda I'm a mental health patient. No I am not scary. You should not be selling a 'mental patient' outfit."

Dr Simon Williams, from Northwest University, Chicago, said: "This scandal might be a blessing in disguise because it is bringing issues of stigma in mental health to public scrutiny.

"This is a great and positive response by individuals and by mental health charities, which will help increase awareness of stigmatisation."

umm i really dont know what to think anymore

 

[Teelie]

There is sensitivity to those who are mentally ill then there's just blowing past it into whatever this would be. Extreme political correctness? There has to be a line drawn somewhere or we'll all be offending someone else.

 

[The Question]

I honestly don't see why anyone would have a problem with this. By this I mean the costume company recalling the product and issuing an apology. People were already offended by it, people who already have a lot of problems to deal with, public perception of their condition chief among them, so I can only see this as a net positive. I really don't see how it could be viewed as "going to far" or some such nonsense.

Plus, those costumes didn't sound very great anyway. If people are genuinely enthused about dressing as a "psycho mental patient" then they can quit being lazy and make the damn costume themselves. Plus, if the company really wants to sell that costume, they can use the general concept and just rebrand it "serial killer" or something. That's more accurate and runs no risk of offending anyone who's feelings should matter in a civilized society.

 

[warhorse78]

Heh, they had on the news about people in an uproar because there are little girl costumes out there, and they have very adult names to them.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/329338/483/Wal-Mart-pulls-naughty-toddler-costume

 

[dodgers2213]

Ughhhh a nation of babies

 

[chaseter]

I can't wait for serial killers to protest their offense over killer costumes. They have a right to be heard!

 

[Sawyer]

When did we become so hyper-sensitive about EVERYTHING?

 

[Schlosser85]

When our collective national balls fell off.

 

[Sawyer]

We throw these accusations around these days way too often. Yes, there are sexist/homophobic/racist/etc. people out there. That doesn't make everything sexist/racist/homophobic and whatnot. Put those labels on everything and they start to lose meaning for stuff that actually warrants it.

 

[The Question]

I can't wait for serial killers to protest their offense over killer costumes. They have a right to be heard!

So you're saying that people who suffer from mental illness are bad people?

We throw these accusations around these days way too often. Yes, there are sexist/homophobic/racist/etc. people out there. That doesn't make everything sexist/racist/homophobic and whatnot. Put those labels on everything and they start to lose meaning for stuff that actually warrants it.

Why doesn't this warrant it?

 

[Godzilla2000]

I wish we as a nation would become more hypersensitive about things that really deserve hypersensitivity like having the decency to protest excessively aggressive bullying.

 

[KevanG]

They would but that would mean actually doing something about it as opposed to just pulling crap like this all the time.

 

[Adamantium]

I wish we as a nation would become more hypersensitive about things that really deserve hypersensitivity like having the decency to protest excessively aggressive bullying.

Yes. And even more so "real life" face to face bullying. Not "cyber bullying". While that's important, that's all I ever hear about is "cyber bullying". Those issues are kids with a lack of self esteem/insecurity issues. This is a result of bad parenting or the influences that either their parents allow or have no control of outside the home actually influencing their children. They let peoples words claw at them and that is unfortunate.

I deal with self-esteem/insecurity personally still as an adult. Of course as an adult and even when I was a teenager, it's something that I have to overcome by choice. Make no mistake, both are equally important, it just seems more of the focus seems, at least from what I see, to be about "cyber bullying". I think a lot of people think kids get it worse online then in person. While maybe true, those people aren't "real" people. They are hiding behind a computer screen. And if it's people they know in the "real world" and they happen to be talking to them online...then I would say that I consider that "real life bullying".

 

[kane9321]

wut?

 

[The Question]

Have you guys ever thought maybe the problem is that you're hypersensitive to people being asked to change how they do something so it won't hurt other people's feelings?

 

[Teelie]

What if you are being hypersensitive to telling others to change so they don't hurt yours or others feelings? Circular logic goes in circles and accomplishes nothing.

 

[The Question]

What if you are being hypersensitive to telling others to change so they don't hurt yours or others feelings? Circular logic goes in circles and accomplishes nothing.

That's not what circular logic is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

 

[Teelie]

Okay then, if you want to use that:
Mix https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy with https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque instead.

You knew what I meant but dodged answering it by criticizing the response.

With saying that because person A is offended by what person B has said, we person C coming in and saying person B being offended just leads to more offending. So we're all offending. I think. In otherwords you're just trying to justify one person being offended by saying other people are offended at being offensive and none of it leads anywhere.

 

[The Question]

Okay then, if you want to use that:
Mix https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy with https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque instead.

You knew what I meant but dodged answering it by criticizing the response.

The only think you said was that I was using circular logic. I said I wasn't and I posted a link to an definition of circular logic with some examples. How is that dodging answering anything? I was directly responding to what you said.

With saying that because person A is offended by what person B has said, we person C coming in and saying person B being offended just leads to more offending. So we're all offending. I think. In otherwords you're just trying to justify one person being offended by saying other people are offended at being offensive and none of it leads anywhere.

Yeah, this paragraph isn't really coherent. I can't quite tell what you're trying to say.

I can tell that you're trying to tell me what it was I was doing, so I guess I'll clear that up: I was raising the notion that maybe the people who demanded this costume recalled weren't hypersensitive, and in fact you guys are being hypersensitive about people changing things to accommodate marginalized groups.

But that wasn't a very good tactic. It was trying to be witty without actually being very clever. So I'll just be blunt:

It's absurd that you guys are getting up in arms about people who suffer from life altering and sometimes very debilitating and painful illnesses, and who face enormous stigma from people who assume that they're dangerous and deviant for no reason grounded in fact, trying to get a company to stop portraying them as being dangerous and deviant. A marginalized and often abused group of people trying to rehabilitate their public image is nowhere near as "hypersensitive" as members of the larger society, who enjoy the privilege of not suffering from mental illness and not dealing with everyone around them assuming they're an axe murderer for no reason, being offended at the attempt and whining about the non-inconveniance they have to deal with as a result.

 

[redhawk23]

It's absurd that you guys are getting up in arms about people who suffer from life altering and sometimes very debilitating and painful illnesses, and who face enormous stigma from people who assume that they're dangerous and deviant for no reason grounded in fact, trying to get a company to stop portraying them as being dangerous and deviant. A marginalized and often abused group of people trying to rehabilitate their public image is nowhere near as "hypersensitive" as members of the larger society, who enjoy the privilege of not suffering from mental illness and not dealing with everyone around them assuming they're an axe murderer for no reason, being offended at the attempt and whining about the non-inconveniance they have to deal with as a result.

Its not as if the charity in question tried to take legal action or anything. They expressed criticism and the retail chains reacted to the criticism under their own free will.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Have you guys ever thought maybe the problem is that you're hypersensitive to people being asked to change how they do something so it won't hurt other people's feelings?

It's but reasonable to be sensitive on this. If we follow that line, nobody could do anything because you will always find someone affected/offended by it.

 

[The Question]

It's but reasonable to be sensitive on this. If we follow that line, nobody could do anything because you will always find someone affected/offended by it.

Nope. I don't see how that works. "That line" is not perpetuating stereotypes that a particular group of people are very likely to be brutal and violent, a group of people who are in fact about two and a half to four times more likely to be the victims of violence than the average person:

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter....dy-mentally-ill-are-often-targets-of-violence

http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php

As long as that's the criteria we'll be okay.

 

[Teelie]

The only think you said was that I was using circular logic. I said I wasn't and I posted a link to an definition of circular logic with some examples. How is that dodging answering anything? I was directly responding to what you said.

No, you avoided answering it at all which is the non-answer, answer. Instead you chose to attack the way I said it instead of what was said. Get it now?

Yeah, this paragraph isn't really coherent. I can't quite tell what you're trying to say.

I have no idea either. I kept getting distracted when trying to respond and gave up.

I can tell that you're trying to tell me what it was I was doing, so I guess I'll clear that up: I was raising the notion that maybe the people who demanded this costume recalled weren't hypersensitive, and in fact you guys are being hypersensitive about people changing things to accommodate marginalized groups.

Here is what I meant. You are saying everyone who said stop being hypersensitive about this are themselves being hypersensitive whilst they are talking about other people. So in effect saying those who are acting hypersensitive aren't actually and those who were claiming they were are in fact the ones hypersensitive themselves.

So no one is being hypersensitive but those who said it in the first place in some kind of turn the tables argument. Everyone is being hypersensitive over it yet you're trying to reflect this back on the complainers, not the complain-ees.

But that wasn't a very good tactic. It was trying to be witty without actually being very clever. So I'll just be blunt:

It's absurd that you guys are getting up in arms about people who suffer from life altering and sometimes very debilitating and painful illnesses, and who face enormous stigma from people who assume that they're dangerous and deviant for no reason grounded in fact, trying to get a company to stop portraying them as being dangerous and deviant. A marginalized and often abused group of people trying to rehabilitate their public image is nowhere near as "hypersensitive" as members of the larger society, who enjoy the privilege of not suffering from mental illness and not dealing with everyone around them assuming they're an axe murderer for no reason, being offended at the attempt and whining about the non-inconveniance they have to deal with as a result.

What is absurd is you dictating who is and is not hypersensitive while acting like you are above it all. There is a point at which this is pointless to even bother discussing and it's here. You are pretending to be unbiased while attacking one side and defending the other.

You took this upon yourself as some kind of attack you must retaliate by using it against those who thought it was excessive. But because you clearly have an agenda to defend one group, you fail to see your just making the whole situation worse.

 

[The Question]

No, you avoided answering it at all which is the non-answer, answer. Instead you chose to attack the way I said it instead of what was said. Get it now?

I didn't know you asked a question. I thought the first part was an example to prove your point.

I have no idea either. I kept getting distracted when trying to respond and gave up.

Here is what I meant. You are saying everyone who said stop being hypersensitive about this are themselves being hypersensitive whilst they are talking about other people. So in effect saying those who are acting hypersensitive aren't actually and those who were claiming they were are in fact the ones hypersensitive themselves.

Yeah. Like I said, I was trying to be clever with my words. Didn't really work out.

So no one is being hypersensitive but those who said it in the first place in some kind of turn the tables argument. Only everyone is being hypersensitive over it yet you're trying to reflect this back on the complainers, not the complain-ees.

Not really sure what you meant in that last sentence there.

What is absurd is you dictating who is and is not hypersensitive while acting like you are above it all. There is a point at which this is pointless to even bother discussing and it's here. You are pretending to be unbiased while attacking one side and defending the other.

I never said I was unbiased.

I am clearly on the side of the Mental Illness activist groups and against the people who think they're wrong. I think I've been pretty up front about that from the start.

You took this upon yourself as some kind of attack you must retaliate by using it against those who thought it was excessive. But because you clearly have an agenda to defend one group, you fail to see your just making the whole situation worse.

How am I making the situation worse? All I'm doing is disagreeing with you and giving my reasons why.

 

[Teelie]

Okay, here's my last post on it then you can go back to being pompous.

This company makes the costumes which apparently offend some people.
The offended people get offended and let them know it.
The costumes are taken down and no longer sold. Apologies insue to say no harm was meant.
Some people respond that it is too much political correctness. That being offended by something does not always justify taking action when the action can be seen as excessive.
You come in and say that those responding (calling it excessive to remove them) are themselves being too sensitive when the original ones who were offended (the ones who wanted the costumes removed) have every right to be offended.
Those who were offended are right but somehow not hypersensitive, those who said it is excessive are wrong but are hypersensitive.
This just leads to calling everyone hypersensitive and no one having a ****ing clue how to understand the argument anymore.