God forbid a man's life be good enough to make a soppy movie about and he attend the award ceremonies that film garnered. Wouldn't want the reality of neurological disorders to upset the viewing experience of the audience!
This is exactly what the film talked about, living life in isolation and constant apologia because the cognitive overhead required to contend with the tics is too much to ask of normies lest the stupor of their daily lives be disturbed. This entire episode of Tourette's discourse has basically been a reminder that normie sadism is alive and well, and inclusivity remains the exclusive domain of those who can still squeeze into the public bubble.
Public order should defer to actual antisocial activities that harm people, like subway stabbings and public urination, not the tics and jitters and words from a disordered mind.
Just admit you don't want to actually do the work of caring about these people, that you prefer they be sequestered away and out of sight so you can enjoy the films about their plights but never internalize the message because it's too inconvenient to have a stiff upper lip to outbursts.
You day "tics and jitters" as if it's nothing, then get incredibly abrasive to the commentor above. You can't spare a modicum of verbal restraint on the Internet yet lecture on tolerance in real life. Look. In. The. Mirror.
That is one hell of an accusation to level at someone after they've said just 23 words to you. If that's the kind of conversation you offer, I think I'll take a pass.
American progressivism seems to suffer from the same issue as most American movements, which is intellectual laziness and the search for a "set it and forget it" stance. Whether it's inclusivity or remigration, the Amerifat convenience-oriented mind seeks out default modes of belief they can adopt so they never again have to perform the mental labor of parsing or qualifying or threading the needle, and just fire off reactive responses through one fixed lens.
I don’t understand in what sense the BAFTAs “excluded” anyone by tolerating Davidson’s presence. Like how is that even metaphorically true?
Is there a difference between saying that including Davidson was bad because his disability upset people, and saying that Adam Pearson (of “A Different Man”) shouldn’t have come to awards shows because his appearance upsets people? Or that Laverne Cox shouldn’t come to awards shows? In all three cases the people should be allowed to come (“tolerated” as you say) based on a) merit and b) the opportunity for people to expand their compassion for people unlike themselves.
It’s wild to me that the people saying we need to tolerate public drug use and other anti-social behavior are the same people who screamed at men for daring to hit on women in public spaces or white people for committing “microaggressions”. Apparently to these people it’s worse to ask an Asian person where they’re from than it is to trash a metro station.
I get this impulse, but are we sure these are the same people? In my experience, the anarcho-communist left and the SJW left have some overlap but are meaningfully distinct groups.
Should the standard really be "harms more people than it helps"? Why can't they just not put a microphone near him? That seems like a completely reasonable and doable accommodation that they didn't implement, especially when the alternative is not being able to attend an award ceremony at which he was meant to be a guest of honor because of the condition that caused a movie to be made about him, and I suppose also not being able to go to any other public event ever again.
Normies (conservatives and liberals) generally understand that equality and order have a yin/yang interdependence; how much of each is the area of debate. Extremists do not recognize this interdependence, and focus on equality (far-left) or order (far-right).
If the above is correct, and if we accept that secular society determines our secular rights, then 'common sense' limitations on behavior/inclusivity are not that difficult.
The disproportionate volume of extremist voices on social media (and media in general) distort these discussions, and makes consensus more difficult to achieve.
Clicked the link to see if there was a reference to the “Curb Your Enthusiasm” episode where they unknowingly hire a chef with Tourette’s to work in an open-plan restaurant kitchen, and he winds up randomly shouting curses in front of all the diners on opening night. Alas, there was not. It’s a classic!
Excellent essay, and thank you for sharing Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance as it offers a persuasive approach to countering the types of tolerance that are both unreasoned and illiberal. As a side note, isn’t using the “n-word” euphemism rather than the (repugnant) word itself unreasoned and corrosive to intellectual argument?
Not really. Why should people have to read the slur to participate in discussions about it? We all know what it is. If the context is a classroom of people who have all chosen to be there and discuss these issues regardless of how personally upsetting to them it is things are different (certainly, it should absolutely not be removed from literature in which it is present.)
God forbid a man's life be good enough to make a soppy movie about and he attend the award ceremonies that film garnered. Wouldn't want the reality of neurological disorders to upset the viewing experience of the audience!
This is exactly what the film talked about, living life in isolation and constant apologia because the cognitive overhead required to contend with the tics is too much to ask of normies lest the stupor of their daily lives be disturbed. This entire episode of Tourette's discourse has basically been a reminder that normie sadism is alive and well, and inclusivity remains the exclusive domain of those who can still squeeze into the public bubble.
God forbid we have standards about public order and respect for the social contract!
You are exactly the problem the article talks about.
Public order should defer to actual antisocial activities that harm people, like subway stabbings and public urination, not the tics and jitters and words from a disordered mind.
Just admit you don't want to actually do the work of caring about these people, that you prefer they be sequestered away and out of sight so you can enjoy the films about their plights but never internalize the message because it's too inconvenient to have a stiff upper lip to outbursts.
You day "tics and jitters" as if it's nothing, then get incredibly abrasive to the commentor above. You can't spare a modicum of verbal restraint on the Internet yet lecture on tolerance in real life. Look. In. The. Mirror.
That is one hell of an accusation to level at someone after they've said just 23 words to you. If that's the kind of conversation you offer, I think I'll take a pass.
I'd pull out of this to save face, too, if I were you.
Do you think Davidson showed a lack of respect for the social contract? He suffers from a disability, his speech was involuntary.
I don't have much to say about this debate, but I get the distinct sense that you loathe humanity, or at least "normies"
American progressivism seems to suffer from the same issue as most American movements, which is intellectual laziness and the search for a "set it and forget it" stance. Whether it's inclusivity or remigration, the Amerifat convenience-oriented mind seeks out default modes of belief they can adopt so they never again have to perform the mental labor of parsing or qualifying or threading the needle, and just fire off reactive responses through one fixed lens.
I don’t understand in what sense the BAFTAs “excluded” anyone by tolerating Davidson’s presence. Like how is that even metaphorically true?
Is there a difference between saying that including Davidson was bad because his disability upset people, and saying that Adam Pearson (of “A Different Man”) shouldn’t have come to awards shows because his appearance upsets people? Or that Laverne Cox shouldn’t come to awards shows? In all three cases the people should be allowed to come (“tolerated” as you say) based on a) merit and b) the opportunity for people to expand their compassion for people unlike themselves.
It’s wild to me that the people saying we need to tolerate public drug use and other anti-social behavior are the same people who screamed at men for daring to hit on women in public spaces or white people for committing “microaggressions”. Apparently to these people it’s worse to ask an Asian person where they’re from than it is to trash a metro station.
I get this impulse, but are we sure these are the same people? In my experience, the anarcho-communist left and the SJW left have some overlap but are meaningfully distinct groups.
Extremely valid arguments. Thank you.
Should the standard really be "harms more people than it helps"? Why can't they just not put a microphone near him? That seems like a completely reasonable and doable accommodation that they didn't implement, especially when the alternative is not being able to attend an award ceremony at which he was meant to be a guest of honor because of the condition that caused a movie to be made about him, and I suppose also not being able to go to any other public event ever again.
Normies (conservatives and liberals) generally understand that equality and order have a yin/yang interdependence; how much of each is the area of debate. Extremists do not recognize this interdependence, and focus on equality (far-left) or order (far-right).
If the above is correct, and if we accept that secular society determines our secular rights, then 'common sense' limitations on behavior/inclusivity are not that difficult.
The disproportionate volume of extremist voices on social media (and media in general) distort these discussions, and makes consensus more difficult to achieve.
Clicked the link to see if there was a reference to the “Curb Your Enthusiasm” episode where they unknowingly hire a chef with Tourette’s to work in an open-plan restaurant kitchen, and he winds up randomly shouting curses in front of all the diners on opening night. Alas, there was not. It’s a classic!
Excellent essay, and thank you for sharing Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance as it offers a persuasive approach to countering the types of tolerance that are both unreasoned and illiberal. As a side note, isn’t using the “n-word” euphemism rather than the (repugnant) word itself unreasoned and corrosive to intellectual argument?
Not really. Why should people have to read the slur to participate in discussions about it? We all know what it is. If the context is a classroom of people who have all chosen to be there and discuss these issues regardless of how personally upsetting to them it is things are different (certainly, it should absolutely not be removed from literature in which it is present.)