MovieChat Forums > Family Guy (1999) Discussion > Is Peter ableist, or just ignorant?

Is Peter ableist, or just ignorant?


Is Peter ableist, or just ignorant? He constantly refers to Joe as a cripple(which is an ableist term), even though he's supposed to be his friend and he also implies that disabled people are untrustworthy. There are other instances, where Peter mistreats Joe, such as turning him into a human puppet and mocking him for not being able to enter his restaurant.

No Meals On Wheels was an episode i really liked, because Peter gets karma for his mistreatment of Joe. He gets to walk in Joe's shoes and it makes him realise how isolating it can be for a disabled person.

What are your thoughts?


James?
I think it may be time to go home
take me round the world one more time
Why not!

reply

In the Petarded episode, Peter took the MacArthur Fellows test and was declared mentally retarded. So that would probably excuse almost any behavior.


reply

It's called satire man.

reply

Peter is a loveable sociopath.

Tony Iommi and Geezer Butler of Black Sabbath watch My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

reply

True love him too.

reply

Both.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z55W6ihUY-c
Moderators are terrorists.

reply

There's no such thing as 'ableist'. You SJWs HAVE to stop inventing stupid terminology that describes absolutely nothing.

Cripple is actually better word, not any 'ableist term'.

People with crippled bodies actually PREFER that term, because think about the term 'disabled' - it implies that you are completely dis-abled, you're not ABLE, when someone with crippled legs can still write a book or host a TV show or direct movies, etc.

So 'cripple' actually just describes that something in the physical side is malfunctioning to some degree, but you are still very able in many ways, and there's nothing wrong with your mind or soul or other parts of the body. So you can still do things, you're still able.

'Disabled' would be more insulting, because it DENIES you 'ability' that you actually still have. Someone is not disabled just because their toe doesn't work or their legs are blown off or their body is quadraleptic. Look at Christopher Reeve and all his accomplishments AFTER he lost control of most of his body. He was still able to move around, write books, give speeches, and even be in movies and TV shows, and inspire people and fund things, and be a father and productive, loved family member. He left a memorable, inspiring legacy.

To me, 'cripple' is a good word, and I can't see anything wrong with it.

People should be less concerned with words and terms anyway, and more concerned with attitudes, behaviour and lawfulness of people.

People should also understand that BODY does not dictate their identity - you are not your body, you HAVE a body, and it's a temporary one, like all bodies. Body is like a car - you might like it and tune it and even show it off, but in the end, it's just a vehicle, and not important compared to YOU. The driver is more important than the car, and the driver exists long after the car has been scrapped.

If a car malfunctions, it's not the driver that's crippled, and the driver can still be as 'able' and useful as ever.

reply

Joe is a cripple. Peter is just saying what is true.

reply

DEFINITELY ABLEIST...🤨

reply