To think prejudice against low intelligence is a big problem.

[Bluebirdsflyover]

I just read a thread on here about the tour de France crash and that woman who caused it.

Now, the woman was culpable for sure, regardless of what you think is a proportionate punishment.
But some of the comments (in fact the vast majority of the comments) were along the lines of:

“She deserves what’s coming to her, stupid woman”

“Nobody is THAT thick”

“I’m glad she will be made an example of, bloody idiot”

And so on.

Like it never crossed anybody’s MIND that some people are actually not as quick witted as others? Some people just aren’t that bright. That they don’t deserve to be punished for that?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making any assumptions about the woman’s cognitive ability, hell we ALL make mistakes, even those who have been to flipping Harvard, and often big ones. Mostly we are lucky and they are not broadcast to the whole world.

If was the way people on that post used perceived intelligence (or lack thereof) as a justification for vindictive retribution that really bothered me.

Cruel people and actions - punish them.
Malicious people and actions- punish them.
Spiteful, sadistic, abusive, coercive, etc etc - punish them all!
‘Stupidness’ (for lack of a better word... it’s quite telling we haven’t really got a world for low intelligence or poor judgement that isn’t derogatory)... should it be punished?
I don’t think so.

Our absolute distain for people who are deemed to act in a ‘stupid’ way is testament, I think, to deeply prejudicial attitudes about intelligence.

If you actually look at it logically... more intelligent people are more likely making a decision about their actions and while they are probably more responsible for it they are equally more likely to be rehabilitated and less likely to commit further crimes.

So it really depends what your goal is. If your goal is to protect the civilian population and reduce crime then you actually should have harsher sentences for low IQ people who can't help themselves committing crimes. They should be kept off the streets because they can't be rehabilitated.

Of course I don't personally believe that. I actually believe everyone should be equally responsible. I don't like it when people get off by way of mental illness either. There is a famous case in Canada of the grey hound killer who basically decapitated someone sitting next to him on a bus and started eating the body... he was declared mentally ill and not fit to be prosecuted so he ended up spending only 2-3 years before he started being integrated back into community with day passes and got fully released after 8 years.

If he stops his meds he will kill someone or multiple people again, he's a couple missed doses away from recommitting and yet he's allowed out and about. I can't see how people support this type of thing personally not a fan.

I agree. It's like the snooty comments you see a lot on MN calling people out for misspelling words etc. Not everyone has great literacy skills. It's not their fault either. Learning disabilities aren't chosen.

I just think we should be tolerant of mistakes where these are plainly obvious and without malice (eg tour de france)

I think you are wrong here OP, for 2 reasons. Firstly this was a crash that led to hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage, and serious injuries to a lot of people. It's not ok to make a "mistake" that ends in that kind of outcome, whoever you are. Very few people are so genuinely unintelligent that they are unable to understand "keep out of the way of the cyclists". If they are, they wouldn't be able to attend the event alone and their carer should be responsible for them. Secondly someone of abnormally low intelligence is actually very unlikely to be devious enough to have done this. They would be much more likely to do what they were told by marshalls. Not wait until the last minute to produce their sign and then do a runner afterwards. It's not normally people of subnormal intelligence who are responsible for this kind of behaviour. (On a par with using a mobile phone when driving or speeding - things that we all know we shouldn't really do, but some think they can get away with -and most of the time they can - it's a risk judgement)

On the issue of the use of words like stupid and idiot, these are in common usage as terms to describe the selfish behaviours of people of normal intelligence. Perhaps that's wrong - words like arrogant and selfish describe this woman's actions better - stupid is too kind really as it implies that there was an excuse for the behaviour

Well, she’s smart enough to still be in hiding and not have been caught after legging it so can’t be that stupid ……

If someone genuinely doesn't have the mental capacity to make the judgements that most of us regularly make to keep ourselves and others safe (e.g how to behave when standing at the edge of a road with fast traffic approaching) then that person has a carer and there are appropriate responsible adults with full mental capacity who are appointed to keep those people safe.

If you aren't in that category and you don't choose to put in the mental effort to make sensible judgements, and as a result cause accident, injury, property damage etc, then yes you certainly should receive a proportionate punishment for that thoughtlessness.

"Prejudice" is the wrong word for what you are talking about OP. Prejudice means assuming that someone will have, or not have, particular characteristics or skills on the basis of some unrelated characteristic - eg assuming that someone's sex or race makes them more or less suitable for specific situations.

In the case of someone being stupid, it is not a "prejudice" - it's a rational judgement on the basis of known evidence that they have shown themselves to be incompetent. If they had the mental capacity to make better judgements that they failed to use, then the punishment and shaming is an appropriate outcome to ensure that they and others learn from the experience and aren't so careless again.

If they didn't have the mental capacity then the consequences should be on the local authority who should have been providing sufficient care and supervision.

Intelligence does not map to common sense.

My ex did something that caused a lot of physical damage. He was being stupid. He wasn’t drunk or on drugs, he’s just not good at thinking through the consequences of his actions. In lots of ways.

Does that mean I couldn’t be pissed off at what he did? No. And if it had been an accident where people had been injured, would he not have been held responsible? I don’t think that’s appropriate.

Yanbu. Pepple with low intelligence have just as much right to be in public space as everyone else. Ive become very aware of it since reasing a similar post on mn a few yrs ago. So now I try not to use derogatory terms.

If she doesn't face consequences for her actions though, where is the lesson?

People can't just do what they want to, no matter they injure others. If thickos get prosecuted so what? The prosecution needs to act as a lesson to avoid other thickos doing harm to others in the future.

Your argument makes no sense at all. Ignorance of the law is no defence for good reason. People would go around breaking the law and their, 'get out of jail free' card is that they are are thick? Come on! Really?

Someone can be of low general intelligence but more than capable of rational thought and sensible behaviour. Alternatively there are those of high general intelligence but who make irrational decisions and are capable of thoughtless and damaging behaviour, some in our current Government being cases in point.
It’s more to do with character than IQ.

@borntobequiet

Someone can be of low general intelligence but more than capable of rational thought and sensible behaviour. Alternatively there are those of high general intelligence but who make irrational decisions and are capable of thoughtless and damaging behaviour, some in our current Government being cases in point. It’s more to do with character than IQ.

Absolutely this. I know a man (at school together 20 years ago) who was in special education classes all through secondary school, thought to have a low IQ etc. Today he runs an enormously successful business in the entertainment industry. Organises huge events and is an all-round marketing genius.

What op isn't saying is that half of the riders were affected by this, and there were many injuries. Here's a list.

Would you be so quick to try and minimise her part in this, op, if she had been in a car at the time? Would the fact that she could drive mean we were allowed to call her actions stupid?

If she was impaired to the point that she can't take responsibility for her own actions, she would need to have had a carer with her that could. And honestly, I know people with learning disabilities that have full time carers and have way more sense than to do something like this. Including someone that competes in national sporting events herself.

The woman caused many injuries, and very probably damage to what are very expensive bikes. Just because she wanted a moment in the limelight. I'm really struggling to see how her actions shouldn't be called stupid.

I don’t think anyone is saying people with lower mental capacity shouldn’t be at public events but if her capacity was so low that she isn’t responsible then she should have been with a carer

What would you call her behaviour if not stupid?

@GiantWingedWaspMoth

The woman did not cause that list of injuries

She caused 50+ people to crash.

She caused injuries to 21 of those people.

An experienced surgeon who has worked in actual war zones likened the injuries she caused to sites he has seen in those war zones.

People were hospitalised because of her.

The inquiry into her actions states that she deliberately violated the safety regulations and caused injuries that might prevent someone from working for three months.

She could face a year in prison and a £13,000 fine.

She has potentially affected the outcome of the competition, the physical health of the athletes, their ability to make an income, their ability to take part in other sporting events, the sponsorship deals.

She deliberately made a choice to stand in front of a large group of athletes moving at speed, so she could wave a big sign around and get on TV.

Calling her stupid seems almost charitable. Thoughtless, reckless, selfish, self-absorbed, attention-seeking, dangerous, spoilt, entitled, and possibly even criminal might all be better words for her.

Not on the same scale but I'm sure on one London Marathon a couple of years ago I saw one male fan lean out from the crowd and try to high five Mo Farrah as he was on track to beat a record, and slowed him down just enough that he didn't manage to break it.

These athletes are not taking part to be the backdrop for some attention-seekers selfie. It's their profession and livelihood, and actions like this woman's are dangerous and potentially career-ending, perhaps even life-ending, for the athletes involved.

I also think you’ve got this all mixed up op. Firstly when someone commits a crime, their ability to understand their actions, their level of personal responsibility, if the actions were deliberate or not, is all assessed if there are concerns.

There is a huge difference between iq and ability to understand right from wrong,

Yes the woman did something stupid, or lacking on common sense, was it deliberate, clearly not, does that mean she’s not culpable, that would be for a judge to decide, does her actions mean she’s got a low iq, highly unlikely to be honest.

Would it not be intelligent to ride a bike watching where you are going, and allowing for stopping distance case of the unexpected?

Apologies. She caused most of those injuries, not all

Having watched that clip i can see a thoughtless selfish woman looking at the cameras not at the cyclists behind her. Stupid behavior yeh. Stupid full stop, i doubt it.

@Bluebirdsflyover

Moving away from the bike incident, what I mean is:

How would you like to be a person who finds learning difficult in our society? Who struggles to reason as quickly as most other people? Who means well but makes “stupid” mistakes quite a lot of the time. Is ours a compassionate society that recognises that different people have different decision making ability and give the benefit of the doubt when clearly no ill will was intended??

Or is this a society that will villify people and punish on the basis of “being stupid” and causing problems for the rest of us?

OP the woman who caused the crash of about 50 cyclists because she stuck out a cardboard sign was thick and selfish.

Your OP misses the point. People were calling her thick because she was.

And if you saw the video, you would see that too. She wrecked 000's of hours of preparation because she was dumb, no excuses possible.

Her actions at the time were stupid and reckless, even if she herself isn't stupid most of the time. As a result, many were injured, so her stupid actions have consequences, and yes, she should have to pay the price for that, if they can find her, that is. Otherwise, where do you draw the line as to what is excusably stupid and what isn't?

Highly intelligent people make catastrophic mistakes on a regular basis. You only have to look at the cases (often in America) of young children left to die by mistake in boiling cars.

The law already allows for intent if a case goes to trial.

If a certain group are automatically not responsible for their mistakes based on intelligence level, should it follow that this group aren't given the same freedoms as the rest of society? Why should they be allowed to put the rest of us in harms way if they aren't responsible?

I wouldn't assume that the person who caused the Tour de France crash had a learning disability.

I don't think she should be prosecuted for it, though. They should have had barriers and stewards in place to stop people from doing this. If anything it's the fault of the event organisers that this was allowed to happen.

Not to minimise what the woman with the sign did, but she did not cause 21 injuries. There has been some very irresponsible reporting of the event.

There were two crashes on Tour de France's opening day, with 21 injuries between them. The pile-up caused by the sign-holding spectator caused nine of those injuries.

The worst of the nine injuries caused by the sign-holding woman were Jasha Sütterlin’s large wrist hematoma and Casper Pedersen who needed stitches.

The second crash was a lot more serious and was the one the orthopaedic surgeon was quoted as saying was like a war zone. It included the following injuries:

Ignatas Konovalovas: Head trauma and loss of consciousness. Concussion evaluation at the hospital.
Cyril Lemoine: Four broken ribs and a collapsed lung.
Chris Froome: Hip and chest trauma. Evacuated for assessment.
Ben O’Connor: Forearm stitches and bruises.
Marc Soler: Broken elbows.
Mike Teunissen: X-rays on hips. Injured elbow.
Marc Hirschi: Separated shoulder.
Amund Grondahl Jansen: X-rays on lumbar spine. Elbow stitches.
Clément Russo: Chest trauma.
Reto Hollenstein: Chest trauma.
Daniel McLay: X-rays on back.

Sign-holding woman had absolutely nothing to do with that crash or those injuries

You don’t have to be of low intelligence to do stupid things.

The woman in question acted very thoughtlessly, to put it kindly, and acting thoughtlessly is not confined to the thick.