"Mentally Challenged" Policeman

[Anhar_Miah]

I think there is two contexts that I missed here, one is from the context from the viewer, the other context is from the perspective of the actor and in that regard I agree with your points.

From the actors context, I feel the problem still persists because there may be two possibilities at work here:

The actor with consent and full comprehension is participating in self deprecating satire out of his own choice (and thus morally giving us the right to indulge in that type of self deprecating satire) OR the actor is unaware and is being manipulated into being the object of the satire (not of his own choosing).

Since we can not tell with certainty which the exact case is, all we have is speculation at this point. With speculation our analysis is in doubt, and we can not confidently conclude if the video is right or wrong.

 

[Tom Marshall]

The actor with consent and full comprehension is participating in self deprecating satire out of his own choice (and thus morally giving us the right to indulge in that type of self deprecating satire)...

I'm still fairly certain that's the case... but, as has been said, we can't be 100% positive.

 

[MiniMan13]

I'm still fairly certain that's the case... but, as has been said, we can't be 100% positive.

He did an interview on Internet superstar if anyone wants to check it out
http://revision3.com/internetsuperstar/retardedpolice/

Starts at about 7:30

 

[ConspiracyPenguin]

...I said "was" because I considered the thread dead as of July 12th. Before then is when the majority of the comments were made. Now that it's no longer the case, it *is* a civil discussion.

Oh, see I hadn't noticed the dates. It looks like Jack went and pulled a Penguin on us...or at least me. Wait...how the hell did he Penguin the Penguin? :huh:

Johnny, if you honestly have no tolerance for "my kind" that is fine. I may find it extremely offensive, racist even, but I will respectfully withdraw from this thread.

 

[ugafan]

ponce on whatthebuckshow

link

 

[metro2307]

I think there is two contexts that I missed here, one is from the context from the viewer, the other context is from the perspective of the actor and in that regard I agree with your points.

From the actors context, I feel the problem still persists because there may be two possibilities at work here:

The actor with consent and full comprehension is participating in self deprecating satire out of his own choice (and thus morally giving us the right to indulge in that type of self deprecating satire) OR the actor is unaware and is being manipulated into being the object of the satire (not of his own choosing).

Since we can not tell with certainty which the exact case is, all we have is speculation at this point. With speculation our analysis is in doubt, and we can not confidently conclude if the video is right or wrong.

Not sure I understand your logic here. Are you saying that as long as the actor has Downs, we have attained a moral right? And, if the actor did not have Downs, we would then be morally wrong?

I honestly thought the issue was the content. Isn't it a third possibility that the actor can have Down's Syndrome and still be wrong for doing this satire? And this is not a good example of self-deprecating humor. The actor is not "retarded" and is not a police officer. The only way this would be self-deprecating humor is if we knew the actor and he was mocking himself or his public image. That is not the case here.

This all pivots on the concept that the actor has Down's and wouldn't it be funny if....? Clearly this is not about authority figures and this does not promote better understanding of vulnerable adults. If the content was OK, then any actor could have played the part.