halloween costumes removed due to offending the mentally ill

[Ant-manic]

i don't see anything wrong with it. the costume makers made a decision to stop selling the costumes. it's not like the government stepped in and forbade them to offend the mentally ill. it has nothing to do with hypersensitivity. it has everything to do with respect.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

It's easy to say society is too hypersensitive until your sub-group is the one being ridiculed or marginalized by everyone else.

People already treat the mentally ill like diseased lepers, why make it worse with public-sanctioned mockery?

 

[Ant-manic]

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.

and where would you draw the line? what groups do you find unimportant enough to offend?

 

[cryptic name]

i don't see anything wrong with it. the costume makers made a decision to stop selling the costumes. it's not like the government stepped in and forbade them to offend the mentally ill. it has nothing to do with hypersensitivity. it has everything to do with respect.

I agree. I do think it's weird to complain about these costumes now, they've been around for years.

 

[Ant-manic]

I agree. I do think it's weird to complain about these costumes now, they've been around for years.

true. two halloweens ago i myself attempted to get ahold of straightjacket for my costume. i, ultimately, decided against it. but it wasn't out of respect for the mentally ill. i, honestly, never even considered that it might offend them. but now that i know, i don't think i lost out by the removal of these specific costumes. they probably looked kind of cheap anyways.

 

[The Question]

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

I think you're confusing "pompous" with "saying that you're wrong and explaining why."

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.

I really don't think that's the case. I don't really see how that makes the argument more confusing.

 

[Teelie]

and where would you draw the line? what groups do you find unimportant enough to offend?

It's not groups, it's actions and the response to the offense(s) in question. The solution here is just as easy to rename them instead of removing them. Instead if they were simply renamed no doubt someone would still be offended. So should they stop making those costumes altogether?

Suppose then someone is offended at a cow costume because it might promote eating meat but they're vegan. Do we now ban cow costumes? How about cowboys. It might offend Native Americans. Or witches? Christians might be offended.

My original, long lost point was if we did this every time something offended someone (in this case, a halloween costume that somehow is going to set back mental illness causes decades or something), everyone would be constantly offended and nothing would come of it but more people being offended. Saying someone else is offended because they offended someone else is just perpetuating the cycle.

 

[Ant-manic]

It's not groups, it's actions and the response to the offense(s) in question. The solution here is just as easy to rename them instead of removing them. Instead if they were simply renamed no doubt someone would still be offended. So should they stop making those costumes altogether?

Suppose then someone is offended at a cow costume because it might promote eating meat but they're vegan. Do we now ban cow costumes? How about cowboys. It might offend Native Americans. Or witches? Christians might be offended.

My original, long lost point was if we did this every time something offended someone (in this case, a halloween costume that somehow is going to set back mental illness causes decades or something), everyone would be constantly offended and nothing would come of it but more people being offended. Saying someone else is offended because they offended someone else is just perpetuating the cycle.

again, you still have the right to dress up as a mentally ill person. you have lost none of your rights. one company just made a decision not to sell their "mentally ill person" costume.

 

[Steyin]

Since there are no images to accompany this, I'll assume that the costumes were stereotypical straitjacket suits or something along the lines of Hannibal Lecter, perhaps one even came with a knife.

Or am I wrong?

 

[Teelie]

I think you're confusing "pompous" with "saying that you're wrong and explaining why."

No, I meant the literal definition.

"having or exhibiting self-importance: arrogant <a pompous politician>"

 

[The Question]

No, I meant the literal definition.

"having or exhibiting self-importance: arrogant <a pompous politician>"

And I'm arrogant because... why? What's arrogant about what I've done so far?

 

[Teelie]

again, you still have the right to dress up as a mentally ill person. you have lost none of your rights. one company just made a decision not to sell their "mentally ill person" costume.

And yet we're having this argument about it, aren't we? Anyone who wears one of these costumes is wrong. Anyone who says that it is wrong to wear one is right. This is the crux of the argument.

While that's not banning it, it is condemning those who do it as being offensive. Even though anything anyone does is offensive to someone so no one should do anything, lest they offend. That's my argument.

When people said the level of response to removing the costumes was excessive suddenly it's they who are wrong and offended for daring to not be offended at the original costume in the first place.

 

[Teelie]

And I'm arrogant because... why? What's arrogant about what I've done so far?

The attitude your responses give, but now if I call you pedantic you'll question that too, which given your name is fitting.

 

[The Question]

It's not groups, it's actions and the response to the offense(s) in question. The solution here is just as easy to rename them instead of removing them. Instead if they were simply renamed no doubt someone would still be offended. So should they stop making those costumes altogether?

That's a very vague what if. What would they be renaming it to? Who are this hypothetical offended party? What is the nature of their complaint? All those details kind of matter. Honestly, I don't see any reason to assume that would be the case.

Suppose then someone is offended at a cow costume because it might promote eating meat but they're vegan. Do we now ban cow costumes? How about cowboys. It might offend Native Americans. Or witches? Christians might be offended.

None of those are depictions of the offended group that perpetuate negative and harmful stereotypes about that group. That's what we're talking about here.

(in this case, a halloween costume that somehow is going to set back mental illness causes decades or something)

Halloween costumes like that normalize and legitimize the (completely erroneous and actively harmful) notion that mentally ill people are likely to be violently homicidal. Companies not using that name for costumes like that is one small step in a long line of small steps to change cultural perception.

The attitude your responses give, but now if I call you pedantic you'll question that too, which given your name is fitting.

Could you please be more specific? What am I doing that I shouldn't be doing? What am I not doing that I should be doing?

 

[Ant-manic]

And yet we're having this argument about it, aren't we? Anyone who wears one of these costumes is wrong. Anyone who says that it is wrong to wear one is right. This is the crux of the argument.

not my argument. i only commented because people kept throwing around the label "oversensitive." the crux of your argument is that this instance of "political correctness" was crossing some imaginary line.

 

[The Question]

And yet we're having this argument about it, aren't we? Anyone who wears one of these costumes is wrong. Anyone who says that it is wrong to wear one is right. This is the crux of the argument.

While that's not banning it, it is condemning those who do it as being offensive. Even though anything anyone does is offensive to someone so no one should do anything, lest they offend. That's my argument.

When people said the level of response to removing the costumes was excessive suddenly it's they who are wrong and offended for daring to not be offended at the original costume in the first place.

But the problem of your argument is that it values all types of offense as being equal. Sure, anyone can in theory be offended by anything, but we're specifically talking about a depiction of a marginalized group that perpetuates negative stereotypes. That kind of offense actually matters.

 

[Teelie]

No, my point is that if we responded like this to everyone's offense, we'd never grow past being offended or accept it and move on. Being offended is a part of life and if you can't get over a halloween costume that offends you, you aren't going to get very far in life being offended at every little thing.

That's not the same thing as active or even veiled discrimination which it's being equated it to.

It might be subtle to you or others but it does not promote that people who are mentally ill are all dangerous and that would be ridiculous anyways. It's called "Psycho Ward" Not, "Psych Ward," or "Mental Patient Ward" it was very specifically hostile mentally ill people. Ones who can be accurately depicted like that.

It's not blackface either. It's not pretending to be another ethnicity to degrade them, it's not pretending to be mentally ill to degrade them, it's a costume to depict someone who is dangerously homocidal and that's not the same thing. It's a sub catagory of a sub catagory of psychology.

And now I think I'll hold to my previous post up there and drop it because it will never get beyond this block. Those who are offended will always be offended and those who thought it was too excessive a response will continue to see it as too excessive a response.

 

[Ant-manic]

No, my point is that if we responded like this to everyone's offense, we'd never grow past being offended or accept it and move on. Being offended is a part of life and if you can't get over a halloween costume that offends you, you aren't going to get very far in life being offended at every little thing.

That's not the same thing as active or even veiled discrimination which it's being equated it to.

It might be subtle to you or others but it does not promote that people who are mentally ill are all dangerous and that would be ridiculous anyways. It's called "Psycho Ward" Not, "Psych Ward," or "Mental Patient Ward" it was very specifically hostile mentally ill people. Ones who can be accurately depicted like that.

It's not blackface either. It's not pretending to be another ethnicity to degrade them, it's not pretending to be mentally ill to degrade them, it's a costume to depict someone who is dangerously homocidal and that's not the same thing. It's a sub catagory of a sub catagory of psychology.

And now I think I'll hold to my previous post up there and drop it because it will never get beyond this block. Those who are offended will always be offended and those who thought it was too excessive a response will continue to see it as too excessive a response.

it's bad form to rant and then say you're dropping it. that's like me just flat out saying that i get the last word.

 

[Mike_D202]

In other news: The World Clown Organization files suit against Rubies Costumes due to the negative light given by the "killer clown" costume.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

i don't see anything wrong with it. the costume makers made a decision to stop selling the costumes. it's not like the government stepped in and forbade them to offend the mentally ill. it has nothing to do with hypersensitivity. it has everything to do with respect.

but the point is the government is stepping in. a lot of politicians are now stepping in and saying the companies should be done etc etc

its the usual people who might actually have been offend are not making these claims, but are having them made on they're "behalf" by someone who thought they would be offended

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

Since there are no images to accompany this, I'll assume that the costumes were stereotypical straitjacket suits or something along the lines of Hannibal Lecter, perhaps one even came with a knife.

Or am I wrong?

here you go

the one on the left was called Psycho Ward where as the right was mental patient costume

 

[Wolfwood]

There is a prevailing conception in society that mental health patients are boogeymen and that the institutes that help them are terrifying places. I'm glad that we're starting to become aware of that stigma and trying to move away from it.

There's an upcoming video game jam in which the people running it are challenging game designers to come up with horror games that aren't based around "scary" mental health patients or set in Asylums. I think it's a great idea, there are plenty of things that are far more deserving of the horror twist.

 

[SuperFerret]

People already treat the mentally ill like diseased lepers, why make it worse with public-sanctioned mockery?

To be fair, they are mentally ILL. They technically are diseased. Not that that makes it okay to mock them, but I'm finding it interesting that it's become something people are making part of their identities.

 

[The Question]

To be fair, they are mentally ILL. They technically are diseased. Not that that makes it okay to mock them, but I'm finding it interesting that it's become something people are making part of their identities.

I think it's more that people don't like being thought of as potential serial kills just because they have a disease them makes them see funny colors and get confused very easily.

 

[SuperFerret]

I get that. I still find it odd that people choose to use their own negatives to define themselves. (I frankly find it odd how people tend to define themselves in general, but that's another discussion.)

I also think that goes into the stigma against mental illnesses. If you break your leg or contract the flu, something is wrong with your body. If you have a mental illness, something is wrong with you.