ASAN: A PSA regarding Tropic Thunder

Post Reply New Topic

Mental disability groups protest 'Tropic Thunder'
By DERRIK J. LANG, AP Entertainment Writer

LOS ANGELES - "Tropic Thunder" is pushing the envelope too far for groups representing the mentally disabled.

Dozens of people from organizations such as the Special Olympics and the American Association of People with Disabilities protested the movie-industry spoof across the street from the film's Los Angeles premiere at Mann's Bruin Theatre on Monday. The protesters held up signs with slogans such as "Call me by my name, not by my label" and chanted phrases like "Ban the movie, ban the word."

The groups are outraged over scenes featuring the liberal usage of a disparaging term used to describe the mentally disabled. In the movie, director and co-star Ben Stiller plays a fame-hungry actor cast in a war movie who previously had a role as a mentally disabled character named Simple Jack. The DreamWorks film, which opens Wednesday, also stars Robert Downey Jr. and Jack Black.

more...

http://www.imdb.com/Find?select=Quotes&for=ret*d

Search aborts after 100 matches, but I'm sure there are thousands out there.

Really, out of all the movies and TV shows that have used the word "ret*d", why single out this one?

Because this movie is coming out right now, and it looks to be very successful. There's not much use in publically responding in this way to movies which have been out for 10 or more years already.

A student worker bumped a book cart into something and said, "God, I feel so ret*d." I thought, but did not say, "As a person with a developmental disability, should I take offense at that remark?"

the woman who sits behind me and one cubicle over at work is forever saying she is 'ret*d' when she makes a mistake or that someone else is ret*d when they do something 'dumb'. Having been called ret*d more times that I would even care to remember, I cringe internally at the word. My supervisor knows I am AS, and I told her about it when we were just talking one day. What a can of worms that was going to open up if I wasn't just bigger than her prejudices, was the upshot. . .and I came up with it, as to keep peace in the team, not put undue pressure on my supervisor and to keep what shreds of anonymity intact.

and no one wins. She doesn't get enlightened, I don't get to stop cringing and the predjudices roll on.

so. . if those dozens of folks would like to come to my work and protest around my co-workers desk, I can give you the address and help you with the security passes

Merle

Know what? I like the "R" word! I am ret*d.

Let me explain. I am not cognitively impared - the latest PC term. And I am glad for that. I do appreciate my genius IQ.

But I am slow. I am not a quick study. While I will eventually outstrip everyone else' ability, I will take a fair bit of time in getting there. Look uo the rwal meaning of the "R" word. Slow. I will admit this.

Go ahead entees, laugh as you quickly jet ahead of me. You will not laugh forever!

Being "slow" in processing and dealing with information is NOT being "ret*d." Some of the smartest people have to take their time with sensory integration and information processing. And that may be the "real" definition of "ret*d", as you say, but that is not how most people think of it, unfortunately. In the real world, the true definition of a word doesn't really matter. What matters is the cultural/social definition, what people in general THINK it means.

I personally don't see the big deal over this.

As a matter of fact, I will be seeing the movie in theatres in a couple weeks. It looks hilarious, and will probably be the second-biggest movie of the year.

I think I know which word you mean...

If I'm right, it happens to be the title of a very good Devo song.

In Boston we say 'retahded'.
I've never been truly offended by the use of the word, and I use it myself occasionally in jest.
What offends me is people who deliberately use it to offend, and are stupid enough to want to. They're the real ret*ds.

I think spoof movies are "ret*d", XD.

Acutally, I don't regard the word "ret*d" as offensive - not it's contemporary use, which is more along the lines of calling someone "idiot" or "bastard" - which, in the past, were equally offensive.

What I have problem with is the suggestion that, because we are autistic people, we should automatically be offended by it.
Words only have value and effect when permitted to. Identifying Autsitics with that word seems to be foolish.

In other words, by presenting this campaign, you harm your own cause - albiet blindly.

Much like the legendary anti-racism campaigns of the 90's, that simply ended up spreading such further by identifying words and groups, and glorifying the concept by drawing attention to it.

Ah, political correctness, the ultimate expression of idiocy...

I don't quite understand. Are you saying that being a bastard is OK now? And being an idiot is now just an affectionate term between strangers?

I am not familiar with the legendary anti-racism campaigns of the 90's. I do remember the anti-racism campaigns of the late 50's and 60's, though.

could you enlighten me, please?

A few comments.

-The idea that this word is offensive is not just an invention or oversensitivity or whatever. Many people involved in the coalition which is attempting to use this movie as a teaching moment--see www.r-word.org --are self-advocates who have been labeled with this word both clinically and in a more casual, derisive manner. It is their strongly held opinion, drawn from personal experience, that the word is hateful and harmful. I have not been called this word myself, but I think it is very important to respect their beliefs because ID people are the experts on bigotry towards ID people. To say this is just "being PC" is missing the point. This is about being polite and avoiding language which is clearly hurtful. This is about being respectful towards people who continue to be marginalized.

-ASAN considers this campaign relevent to autistic advocacy for several reasons. This word is often applied clinically to many autistic people, though sometimes incorrectly. There is new research coming out which suggests that IQ is a poor measure for the intellectual capacities of autistic people because of the communication issues. Heck, Donna Williams is a few IQ points away from being classified as "mentally r____." Many autistic people are also called the word whether it's clinically applicable or not. It's the word's connotative meaning which is the problem. A lot of you have brought up examples of "reclaimed" words like "queer," which is really fascinating. But as long as the public has such blatantly wrong misconceptions of people with disabilities, I don't think such a "reclaiming" can really happen. Context is also important. I know gay people who call themselves "fa***t" or "dyke" on occassion, but I hardly think it's appropriate for me to use that word in most contexts.

First off, I actually saw the movie. I had mixed reactions, seeing the offending language and material in context.

On the one hand, at first (and for the most part) it seems to be making fun of the GENRE of inspirational or tearjerker films having to do with mentally disabled people rather than making fun of such people themselves. The actor playing the ret*d character was portrayed as an insensitive clod who only did the part in hopes of getting an Academy Award. Though over-the-top and purposely mocking, the clips shown from "Simple Jack" (as with all of the fake movie trailers and clips in the movie, of which there were many) were making fun of the genres themselves more than the characters.

However, there were moments that made me think that the filmmakers weren't quite sure shich side they were on - whether they wanted to make fun of condescending sob stories about the mentally ill or the mentally ill themselves. The foremost example would be the discussion between Ben Stiller's character and Robert Downey Jr.'s character about how you can't get an Oscar by playing "real-retarded," you have to "act ret*d but call it something else," using (among others) Rain Man's autistic character as an example. This I don't think was spoofing so much as it was misinformation - perhaps not purposeful, but still troublesome when many people do still think that certain cognitive disorders are all the same things.

But seeing as this movie was not aiming for political correctness in the least, and made fun of blacks (including the use of the dreaded N-word), Asians (ESPECIALLY Asians), gays, war veterans, Catholics, Australians and (I believe) people with Tourette's Syndrome, I don't think it's quite fitting to attack them for not holding this, that or the other group sacred. It's not classy or profound or sensitive, but no one is pretending that it is.

In general, with situations like this, depending on the context I'll either let it go or be slightly miffed but still not demand that it be canceled, boycotted or censored. In some cases, I might lose a good deal of respect for something if it's really tasteless, but then I just don't watch it. My general test for whether something is offensive enough to turn me off of supporting it further is whether or not you could substitute another group in for whichever one is being insulted and stay on the air without lawyers hounding you. Crass, line-crossing humor a la South Park is one thing. Just going after acceptable targets beyond the pale of what would be considered alright for more protected minorities because one can is another issue entirely.

I think Tropic Thunder ALMOST goes too far at some points, but for the most part is not being any more offensive towards developmentally disabled groups than it is towards all the others I mentioned above.