Anonymous wrote:
This is not about scars, but I have a neighbor who has many Halloween decorations in the yard. One is a man hanging (yes, by a rope around the neck) from a tree. It's dressed as a pirate so I suppose it's okay. What do you think DCUM?

Many people have these now. I think they’re dumb, but I think over the top Halloween decorations are dumb.

This is not about scars, but I have a neighbor who has many Halloween decorations in the yard. One is a man hanging (yes, by a rope around the neck) from a tree. It's dressed as a pirate so I suppose it's okay. What do you think DCUM?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beyond beyond parody at this point.

+100
Might as well have come from the Onion.

Did you guys actually read it? It doesn't sound like it. It's just a story about an activist with a facial scar who wants people to think about sending the message that facial scars are "scary". I appreciate getting new perspectives.

Some of you people are the real whiny. "On no, don't make me think...I want to just continue running around being an insensitive jerk..."

I am not sure “appropriation” is the correct term here. Most did not intentionally develop scars to be offended by others imitating them without doing the work. I see the point of being upset when scars similar to theirs are used to look repulsive or scary.

The article didn’t use the word “appropriation” and neither did the PP, so why are you using one of the GOP’s favorite anger bait words?

And you could have just read the article. That’s pretty much what the woman said: some of us have real scars, it’s demoralizing for people with scars to see others use scars as something hideous.

Yes. And the end of the article:
"He says that whether a costume takes things too far depends on the context, and that dressing up in costumes inspired by historical events should be a case-by-case decision. But dressing up in gore is not the same as ridiculing someone with a disfigurement — which he says should never be done.

"I think that if the costume is something like a zombie, or if you have a red line drawn around your neck and you say you're Mary Queen of Scots, I don't think that is any form of ridicule of somebody with a disfigurement," Cole said.

If your costume is intended to depict somebody with a disfigurement, Cole says you may want to think again.

But some people cannot understand context or nuance. They enjoy getting all lathered up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beyond beyond parody at this point.

+100
Might as well have come from the Onion.

Did you guys actually read it? It doesn't sound like it. It's just a story about an activist with a facial scar who wants people to think about sending the message that facial scars are "scary". I appreciate getting new perspectives.

Some of you people are the real whiny. "On no, don't make me think...I want to just continue running around being an insensitive jerk..."

I am not sure “appropriation” is the correct term here. Most did not intentionally develop scars to be offended by others imitating them without doing the work. I see the point of being upset when scars similar to theirs are used to look repulsive or scary.

The article didn’t use the word “appropriation” and neither did the PP, so why are you using one of the GOP’s favorite anger bait words?

And you could have just read the article. That’s pretty much what the woman said: some of us have real scars, it’s demoralizing for people with scars to see others use scars as something hideous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beyond beyond parody at this point.

+100
Might as well have come from the Onion.

Did you guys actually read it? It doesn't sound like it. It's just a story about an activist with a facial scar who wants people to think about sending the message that facial scars are "scary". I appreciate getting new perspectives.

Some of you people are the real whiny. "On no, don't make me think...I want to just continue running around being an insensitive jerk..."

I am not sure “appropriation” is the correct term here. Most did not intentionally develop scars to be offended by others imitating them without doing the work. I see the point of being upset when scars similar to theirs are used to look repulsive or scary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beyond beyond parody at this point.

+100
Might as well have come from the Onion.

Did you guys actually read it? It doesn't sound like it. It's just a story about an activist with a facial scar who wants people to think about sending the message that facial scars are "scary". I appreciate getting new perspectives.

Some of you people are the real whiny. "On no, don't make me think...I want to just continue running around being an insensitive jerk..."

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Harry Potter, you’ve been cancelled.

He was already canceled bc JK Rawling said men cannot be women.

Anonymous wrote:Beyond beyond parody at this point.

+100
Might as well have come from the Onion.

Anonymous wrote:I have scars. I don't mind if other people wear scars as costumes. Who doesn't have scars?

Are your scars so disfiguring that if you went to a Halloween party without a costume you might win the prize for scariest look?

Sorry Harry Potter, you’ve been cancelled.

Anonymous wrote:If someone dresses up like zombie Trump, will MAGAs be traumatized?

No. We already see zombie Biden everyday.

If someone dresses up like zombie Trump, will MAGAs be traumatized?

Anonymous wrote:NPR is not my Mom.

Sounds like you have Mom issues.

NPR is not my Mom.

I have a child who looks different. My child was born that way but I get to deal with people coming up and asking their about their "burns" and "bloody" face. So honestly, I was happy to see the awareness. This is something we deal with everyday because people don't know how to interact with people different from themselves.