Is this Political Correct Madness? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Expired

Is this Political Correct Madness?

suchafunkymonkey Avatar
8y, 5m agoPosted 8 years, 5 months ago
Disclaimer:
This is solely my opinion and is not in anyway intended to offend, belittle or distress anyone. If anyone has an issue with the comment then that is your opinion and I respect that, so please respect mine. By continuing to read this, you acknowledge the above and agree not to hold me responsible for any offence taken.

Did anyone see that Last Choir Standing the other night? There was a choir on there (which were quite good), that was made of a less-than-able-bodied-group-of-people that shared a common interest. I have absolutely no problem with this and support them fully.
However, one of them was audibly/orally imparied (used to be called deaf and/or dumb) and was signing along with the singing. I can only ask why. How could she possibly be competing in a group singing competition without actually being able to sing with the choir? Were people too PC-afraid to point out that as she wasn't singing, she shouldn't have been there? Is it even possible to "sing" in sign language?
People have to accept that while less-than-able-bodied-people shouldn't feel like they can't take an active part in life, there are some things they just can't do. What next? Visually impaired pilots? Wheelchair-bound firefighters?

Surely singing (or at least making a noise judging by x factor) would be a minimum requirement for a singing competition.
Tags:
suchafunkymonkey Avatar
8y, 5m agoPosted 8 years, 5 months ago
Options

All Comments

(72) Jump to unreadLocked
Comments/page:
Page:
1 Like #1
how very tolerant of you. is ther any other disabilities you have a problem with?
#2
I haven't seen it but I do see your point. Maybe she is deaf but can speak? Surely there is a reason that she is part of it.
#3
Maybe she as signing so that other people with hearing difficulties would know the words that were being sung even though they couldn't hear. This would make the performance more accessible to viewers. A good thing I believe.
#4
I know what your saying but you may be being a little cynical.

I thought It was a nice touch, I personally I thought their singing was mediocre but signing what they were singing was in keeping with what they were about which was 'Everyone can enjoy these competitions'
#5
Susannah;2669194
Maybe she as signing so that other people with hearing difficulties would know the words that were being sung even though they couldn't hear. This would make the performance more accessible to viewers. A good thing I believe.


She was signing as part of the choir and didn't peform with any other choirs, so it wasn't about accessability.
#6
You admitted yourself they was quite good so I don't understand your problem

They was a group, they sung, what's the problem

I think it's the same as comparing it to the singing groups that have dancers who wait for it.... Don't sing either
#7
Teqnophile;2669171
how very tolerant of you. is ther any other disabilities you have a problem with?

Read the post properly. I don't have a problem with any disabilities, I was only pointing out the fact that she was in a signing competition but wasn't able to sing.
#8
Teqnophile
how very tolerant of you. is ther any other disabilities you have a problem with?


Well said. As you clearly read, this type of person always leaves linguistic traces of their true attitude, usually in the form of protesting against what it is they are doing. For example, "I have absolutely no problem with this..." Me thinks the OP doth protest too much! :roll:
#9
RedIron;2669216
You admitted yourself they was quite good so I don't understand your problem

They was a group, they sung, what's the problem

I think it's the same as comparing it to the singing groups that have dancers who wait for it.... Don't sing either

The group sang. She didn't. I don't think its the same as having dancers.
#10
Hmmm anyone seen the lid to the can of worms :whistling:
#11
Liddle ol' me;2669225
Well said. As you clearly read, this type of person always leaves linguistic traces of their true attitude, usually in the form of protesting against what it is they are doing. For example, "I have absolutely no problem with this..." Me thinks the OP doth protest too much! :roll:

So you're now labelling me as prejudice because I was asking why someone who wasn't singing was in a singing contest?
#12
suchafunkymonkey
She was signing as part of the choir and didn't peform with any other choirs, so it wasn't about accessability.

How do you know it wasn't about accessibility? As people with physical differences they will be well aware of the frustrations that many people experience when watching anything on television. They could have decided to make their performance more accessible and they DID! This doesn't mean they then have to offer their services to all other competitors.
#13
Celticsun
Hmmm anyone seen the lid to the can of worms :whistling:


lol
#14
suchafunkymonkey
The group sang. She didn't. I don't think its the same as having dancers.


I didn't think you would

As singing group having dancers who also don't sing quite clearly isn't controversial enough for you but where this girl has a disability it makes it worthy of starting a thread?

Explain to me what is the difference between these;

You have a singing group, they have two dancers who do not sing but the rest of the group does sing

You have a singing group, one of the members sign's the song but doesn't sing herself

Surely the first is twice as bad as there is two of them?
#15
Celticsun
Hmmm anyone seen the lid to the can of worms :whistling:


No I think that ended up somewhere in the stratosphere when it came off this particular can....:oops:
#16
RedIron
Surely the first is twice as bad as there is two of them?


That doesn't really make a good point, does it? Why don't you make it one dancer if you're going to try and be awkward about it?
#17
RedIron;2669285
I didn't think you would

As singing group having dancers who also don't sing quite clearly isn't controversial enough for you but where this girl has a disability it makes it worthy of starting a thread?

Explain to me what is the difference between these;

You have a singing group, they have two dancers who do not sing but the rest of the group does sing

You have a singing group, one of the members sign's the song but doesn't sing herself

Surely the first is twice as bad as there is two of them?

It was a choir, they don't have dancers. You're adding content to create an analogy that supports an opinion you hold to attempt to frown upon a question I asked and affirm that I hold prejudice views against this woman for being impaired which I don't.
#18
My opinion is that this is a competition to find the choir most popular with viewers and judges.
It's up to the judges and viewers to decide what consitutes a choir. Having someone on the choir who signs could be an added advantage, as viewers who can't hear can appreciate the performance.
Strictly speaking, it's not a singing competition. However, if the whole choir were signing, then I would say it wouldn't be very interesting for most viewers and would probably get voted out. And there's the rub. It's all about judges and viewers opinions - like X factor, we all get fired up because someone with amazing talent got knocked out.
PS - Respect to suchafunkymonkey for starting a debate on a very sensitive topic. Read his post carefully - it does not try to restrict or criticise audibly/orally imparied people.
1 Like #19
backtothecaves;2669325
My opinion is that this is a competition to find the choir most popular with viewers and judges.
It's up to the judges and viewers to decide what consitutes a choir. Having someone on the choir who signs could be an added advantage, as viewers who can't hear can appreciate the performance.
Strictly speaking, it's not a singing competition. However, if the whole choir were signing, then I would say it wouldn't be very interesting for most viewers and would probably get voted out. And there's the rub. It's all about judges and viewers opinions - like X factor, we all get fired up because someone with amazing talent got knocked out.
PS - Respect to suchafunkymonkey for starting a debate on a very sensitive topic. Read his post carefully - it does not try to restrict or criticise audibly/orally imparied people.


Thank you. Someone actually read my post before getting on their high horse and abusing.

I am not trying to belittle anyone for any ability they do or do not possess. I am genuinely interested to hear opinions about this.
#20
attempting to use logic with the intellectually impaired takes a lot of effort - sometimes it just isn't worth the effort.
#21
Liddle ol' me
attempting to use logic with the intellectually impaired takes a lot of effort - sometimes it just isn't worth the effort.


ooo That was sharp ;-)
[mod]#22
Liddle ol' me;2669370
attempting to use logic with the intellectually impaired takes a lot of effort - sometimes it just isn't worth the effort.


How can you criticise people for being offensive and then do exactly the same yourself? :?
#23
Liddle ol' me
attempting to use logic with the intellectually impaired takes a lot of effort - sometimes it just isn't worth the effort.


:roll:
#24
Syzable
How can you criticise people for being offensive and then do exactly the same yourself? :?


I know, that was wrong. Sometimes I fall off my high horse :)
#25
An addition to the original post and this is hypothetical!

What if woman in question allowed to enter because of:
(a) accessability to impaired viewers - or
(b) signing was considered to be actively part of the song and considered collectively -or
(c) guilt by those people who are not impaired

If it is (c) then how would they progress through the competition? People who are not impaired would not benefit from her performance, so how would they vote for her? Would they be voting for her out of compassion for something they see as a disability? If they did this would they allow her to eventually win? Is this worse than her not competing in the first place?
#26
I apologise again for the bluntness of my remark above. What I should have said is: I have absolutely no problem with the intellectually impaired and support them fully. However, I wish to make an issue of it on this thread. (pls excuse the plagiarism).
1 Like #27
Liddle ol' me;2669370
attempting to use logic with the intellectually impaired takes a lot of effort - sometimes it just isn't worth the effort.

You're exactly the person the disclaimer was aimed at. You're quick to attack an opinion if it is not shared 100% with your own. You have stated that communicating with someone with an impairment (albeit the impairment is not actual but instead produced by libel) "isn't worth the effort".

You are a hypocrite.
#28
suchafunkymonkey
An addition to the original post and this is hypothetical!

What if woman in question allowed to enter because of:
(a) accessability to impaired viewers - or
(b) signing was considered to be actively part of the song and considered collectively -or
(c) guilt by those people who are not impaired

If it is (c) then how would they progress through the competition? People who are not impaired would not benefit from her performance, so how would they vote for her? Would they be voting for her out of compassion for something they see as a disability? If they did this would they allow her to eventually win? Is this worse than her not competing in the first place?

Surely people are voting for the choir, not for this particular individual? Also, I would have thought that the choir themselves choose who is in the choir and so they would have decided to have this particular person in their choir. The choir is then judged as a whole.
Do people feel guilty because they do not have a physical impairment?
#29
spacebar;2669468
forget all the fancy talk sucha

get a life you muppet


Sigh...

New member & first post...humm
#30
spacebar;2669468
forget all the fancy talk sucha

get a life you muppet


Yes I need to get a life, when you have just opened a new account to "bravely" make that comment. Why didn't you use your normal account? And no it's not "fancy talk", its normal English.
#31
suchafunkymonkey
You're exactly the person the disclaimer was aimed at.


Yes, I realised this. And your answer again betrays your attitude clearly. :thumbsup:
#32
Susannah;2669483
Surely people are voting for the choir, not for this particular individual?

But how do you know that? The sympathy vote is a powerful motivator. How do you know that Mr & Mrs X aren't feeling terrible for this woman (who I don't doubt is living her life fully and does not feel like she less-abled) and are voting for the reason she has this condition?

Should compeitions like this not be on a totally even ground?
#33
Liddle ol' me
Yes, I realised this. And your answer again betrays your attitude clearly. :thumbsup:


You are utterly intolerable.

I may or may not agree with the OP, however, I fully support his entitlement to express his opinion and create a discussion on a forum about an interesting topic. Just because this view doesn't match your own doesn't mean you can make personal attacks about their intelligence or their ability to be logical.
#34
suchafunkymonkey
But how do you know that? The sympathy vote is a powerful motivator. How do you know that Mr & Mrs X aren't feeling terrible for this woman (who I don't doubt is living her life fully and does not feel like she less-abled) and are voting for the reason she has this condition?

Should compeitions like this not be on a totally even ground?


As a more mainstream example to support this idea, I'd reference the young children who perform in 'Britain's Got Talent'. Clearly they do have a talent and it's often extroadinary to see such a young person be so advanced in singing/dancing/whatever their 'talent', but what proportion of the votes that they receive are from people who think 'aww look, they're so young and brave, they deserve my vote'?
banned#35
red_dwarfer
Sigh...

New member & first post...humm


suchafunkymonkey
Yes I need to get a life, when you have just opened a new account to "bravely" make that comment. Why didn't you use your normal account? And no it's not "fancy talk", its normal English.



i browse this site occasionally and have just signed up because i wanted to reply to you.
there looked like there was other people in that choir with disabilities.
they probably sometimes perform at events where there are people with ifferent disabilities.
the sign language person would probably be part of their team.
it would not be very nice to kick her off just because they are going on tv.

think of something else to annoy you
#36
Liddle ol' me;2669508
Yes, I realised this. And your answer again betrays your attitude clearly. :thumbsup:


I will ignore you from now on. You have nothing to bring to this discussion other than harassement and labelling. Both of which I deplore.
#37
spacebar
think of something else to annoy you


The OP said nothing about it annoying them. Who are you to dish out what can annoy someone and what can't?

If this response annoys you, tough, go and think of something else to annoy you.
#38
spacebar;2669549
i browse this site occasionally and have just signed up because i wanted to reply to you.

I believe you. Millions wouldn't
spacebar;2669549

there looked like there was other people in that choir with disabilities.
they probably sometimes perform at events where there are people with ifferent disabilities.
the sign language person would probably be part of their team.
it would not be very nice to kick her off just because they are going on tv.

think of something else to annoy you


Did you even read my original post?
"There was a choir on there (which were quite good), that was made of a less-than-able-bodied-group-of-people that shared a common interest. I have absolutely no problem with this and support them fully."

I am totally aware that the choir was made up of people with different conditions and I stated that they were quite good. In fact, they were probably the better choir that I saw.
banned#39
suchafunkymonkey
I believe you. Millions wouldn't


Did you even read my original post?
"There was a choir on there (which were quite good), that was made of a less-than-able-bodied-group-of-people that shared a common interest. I have absolutely no problem with this and support them fully."

I am totally aware that the choir was made up of people with different conditions and I stated that they were quite good. In fact, they were probably the better choir that I saw.




ok, i apologise if ive been rude
and i agree,i thought they sung very well
i just think that she woul be part of their normal team,
and there may of been some people who benefitted from her being there
#40
The most powerful lesson you can teach pupils/students of language is to get them to ask a few simple, critical questionsof the text they have to grapple with. Those questions go something like this (you can modify them slightly, and there are more, but these give you a flavour of them in my words).

Who has written the text?
What is their reason for writing the text? (To help answer this ask yourself what alternative texts they could have chosen to write instead?)
Do they have an obvious or hidden agenda? (To help answer this, look for linguistic clues in the text that betray that agenda)
What is the context within which the text is written (To help answer this, think about what they might be writing in response to- they will often answer this explicitly in the text)
Are there any denials in the text? (Examine these carefully and critically as they often betray hidden attitudes).

Post a Comment

No more comments can be posted to this thread.
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!