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 someone genuinely is that mentally that bad then they should have their freedom curtailed for theirs and others safety.

Watching

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

By your reasoning OP, we should just let off Anne Sacoolas for driving on the wrong side of the road and killing Harry Dunn. After all, she didn’t MEAN to kill him, it was just a mistake.

@Rinoachicken

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

By your reasoning OP, we should just let off Anne Sacoolas for driving on the wrong side of the road and killing Harry Dunn. After all, she didn’t MEAN to kill him, it was just a mistake.

And a certain house fire where the intent was not to murder 6 children in itself, but the act of pouring petrol through your own letter box and setting fire to it while the children slept was so highly likely to have fatal consequences that the law recognised it as murder rather than manslaughter.

The offender was below average intelligence, but the act was so astoundingly stupid and well within the capacity to recognise how dangerous it was.

Most people do now take a dim view of applying terms like "stupid" to people with learning difficulties or impaired capacity. People probably are too quick to apply it to just a difference of opinion (e.g. voting choice). But generally calling out a stupid act as being stupid from a supposedly competent adult (the vast majority) is fine.

There’s a big difference between people doing stupid things and people actually being stupid. The term is used as a catch-all for things that deviate from the norms that society has agreed upon for our society to run smoothly, so people who are scatterbrained/socially unaware/thoughtless or careless/selfish/myopic/etc are often labeled stupid when actually they are one of the things from the list above. A person can be incredibly intelligent and still do stupid or thoughtless things; indeed, some of the smartest people I know are complete space cadets who don’t quite think through some of things they’re doing or saying. So, punishing ‘stupid’ mistakes or actions is not the same thing as punishing people for being intellectually slow.

What Anne Sacoolas did was stupid. I doubt she is actually intellectually stupid, though. I think she panicked and her brain just went straight into fight or flight self preservation mode. In a similar way, it seems unlikely that the lady who caused the Tour de France crash is actually intellectually slow. She probably just was so focused on her own world and what she was doing that she wasn’t thinking about it from anyone else’s perspective and misjudged how her actions would affect the cyclists. People like this still needs to be accountable for their actions, though, because that’s what societies do. We pull people up on their inappropriate actions (police regularly pull over ‘stupid’ drivers who are drunk/distracted by texting/selfishly speeding, etc) so that they and everyone else know that what they have done is not okay.

The sign was to her granny and grandad and I am now wondering how young she was, if she is a child.

If so, where were her parents?

However, @Moonmelodies Would it not be intelligent to ride a bike watching where you are going, and allowing for stopping distance case of the unexpected? I really think you need to watch the video, how fast the riders are and how closely packed, and the ensuing domino effect, and re-think your assessment for this particular situation. Same for those who think she was not stepping into road and "just" holding a cardboard message. This is a very fast, competitive race.

It’s interesting. Very few people on here would defend using ‘retard’ but idiot, imbecile, cretin - all of which were used by doctors in the same way as retard - are still fair game as insults.

I get that someone calling that tour de france spectator an idiot means ‘she was doing something silly’ rather than ‘she has a learning disability’ but that’s the point - in calling her a word that was until recently used to describe people with learning disabilities we’re implying that people with learning disabilities do thoughtless, silly things & we’re using them as shorthand for people that it is okay to despise.

Neither of which can be much fun if you’re reading this and are a sensible, level-headed individual with Down’s syndrome.

She was utterly stupid though. There is absolutely no other way to describe what she did. She lacked any sort of common sense and caused many to be injured. What is there to be compassionate towards her for, she caused a big incident!! She is not the one to deserve the compassion. What was she thinking? Well obviously she wasn't.

FWIW if you think that woman's behaviour was bad, wait until you see the complete knobhead spectators (in the middle of the road/blocking the road/physically hands on the riders pushing or slapping/waving flags literally in the faces of riders etc) on the mountain stages... and their behaviour IS deliberate.

Yep, agreed. I’m not not offering an excuses for what we will no doubt see in the mountains but uphill speeds are slower and riders are usually not packed into a peloton (apart from the “auto bus”) ….there’s also been the occasional case of riders swinging a fist in self defense if a spectator really gets them hacked off.

I can only think the lady the other day wasn’t daft but had not been briefed that what she was about to do was akin to stepping into the road in front of an HGV….the peloton when moving at speed is an impressive but scarey thing…..

BTW I’m still grinning at the thought expressed upthread that tour riders must ride within their stopping distance when the reality is being much more than a wheel length behind the rider/possibly teammate in front when riding in a group is probably a sacking offence.

@orinocosfavoritecake

It’s interesting. Very few people on here would defend using ‘retard’ but idiot, imbecile, cretin - all of which were used by doctors in the same way as retard - are still fair game as insults.

I get that someone calling that tour de france spectator an idiot means ‘she was doing something silly’ rather than ‘she has a learning disability’ but that’s the point - in calling her a word that was until recently used to describe people with learning disabilities we’re implying that people with learning disabilities do thoughtless, silly things & we’re using them as shorthand for people that it is okay to despise.

Neither of which can be much fun if you’re reading this and are a sensible, level-headed individual with Down’s syndrome.

The R word carries connotations in this day and age that the others don't, even if they have the same origin.

A shame the woman didn't have the emotional intelligence and empathy to think through the consequences of her foolish actions.

Consequences for other people that is.

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

It's not just cycling - this carelessness is everywhere. I watched the Grand Prix at the weekend, and Verstappen didn't indicate once. Twit.

@BadLad

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

It's not just cycling - this carelessness is everywhere. I watched the Grand Prix at the weekend, and Verstappen didn't indicate once. Twit.

It's not just cycling - this carelessness is everywhere. I watched the Grand Prix at the weekend, and Verstappen didn't indicate once. Twit.

@orinocosfavoritecake

It’s interesting. Very few people on here would defend using ‘retard’ but idiot, imbecile, cretin - all of which were used by doctors in the same way as retard - are still fair game as insults.

I get that someone calling that tour de france spectator an idiot means ‘she was doing something silly’ rather than ‘she has a learning disability’ but that’s the point - in calling her a word that was until recently used to describe people with learning disabilities we’re implying that people with learning disabilities do thoughtless, silly things & we’re using them as shorthand for people that it is okay to despise.

Neither of which can be much fun if you’re reading this and are a sensible, level-headed individual with Down’s syndrome.

Mental retardation is still used to describe developmental delays.The meaning is quite clear which is why nobody uses it. The other three just mean stupid now and nobody even knows what they used to refer to anymore. Is your definition of recently the 20th century?

Mental retardation is still used to describe developmental delays.The meaning is quite clear which is why nobody uses it.
The other three just mean stupid now and nobody even knows what they used to refer to anymore. Is your definition of recently the 20th century

‘Mental Retardation’ really isn’t used in this country to describe developmental delays!! Certainly not by professionals. I’m sure some would still use it, but it’s not socially acceptable to use that phrase anymore.

‘Learning Disability’ is the term used now. No one wound get diagnosed as having ‘Mental Retardation’ now.

‘Intellectual Disability’ is another phrase used but mostly in the US

@CastawayQueen

There’s a difference between a lack of intelligence and a lack of common sense. In this instance it’s clearly the latter.

We will out now, she has been found, arrested and charged, the fine is 1500 euro's if injuries are minor more if they take longer than 3 months to heal.
At least one rider has said he will sue her, not surprising as he had two broken elbows and had to retire from the race.

Not only was she extremely stupid, she did a runner and imho thats perhaps even worse.

Someone very close to me has pretty severe intellectual disability - to the point they can only live semi-independently (basically they have a carer that checks in twice per day to help with cooking and life admin and some supportive technology in their home for when they are alone). Anyway I have never and would never think of them as stupid, thick, dumb, or any other word like that. Not because I'm some kind of extra-nice person but because that's just not what those words mean anymore for most people. I don't mean I think 'well he IS stupid but that's not a nice way to say it so I'll say intellectually impaired instead" - I mean I don't connect the word to him or to other people with cognitive or intellectual disabilities. He's got a different brain and needs some help to get stuff done and to protect him from people who might take advantage of him. That's it.

Who do I think of as stupid? People with "normal" cognition who have the ability and obligation to not act foolishly or selfishly but who go on and do it anyway.

I don't know if you're trying to score some points here or what your deal is, but people with intellectual or cognitive disabilities don't need you to defend a woman who acted selfishly and foolishly in a way that could have easily killed people- and it's insulting to compare that women to them.

If people are genuinely of low intelligence then it's unfair to label them 'stupid. It's bloody cruel in my opinion. However, if someone of 'normal' intelligence just can't be bothered to think for themselves and often causes potential situations that puts others at risk, then yes, I will judge them.

Without exception, people who victim-blame have an inherent deficiency coupled with nauseating smugness yet with an astonishing lack of introspection

I agree with you, OP. It's an epidemic

The victim here are the injured cyclists, not the placard lady. Let's be clear about this and not twist things

@DrSbaitso - “ Yes, I saw stills like that and also assumed she took another step, but from the video it looks as though she didn't walk any further than that and it was her sign that caught the poor guy.

I couldn't agree more that she should have stood somewhere else and did something incredibly dumb! You don't wave even your flimsy cardboard sign in the road in front of the Tour de France, especially while not looking at the riders! It's just that in the rush to label how stupid she was, a fair number of people seem to believe she did something even more egregiously and extremely stupid than she did. In context of the OP's question, that's interesting.”
Interesting as in she clearly had the intelligence not to put herself in any danger, but was too bloody selfish to give a toss about the cyclists she shoved a large sign in front of?! That justifies more anger at the crass stupidity of the action, not less. If she had put herself in front of the cyclists like that she would either have been suicidal or deranged, not stupid.

@Wroxie

Someone very close to me has pretty severe intellectual disability - to the point they can only live semi-independently (basically they have a carer that checks in twice per day to help with cooking and life admin and some supportive technology in their home for when they are alone). Anyway I have never and would never think of them as stupid, thick, dumb, or any other word like that. Not because I'm some kind of extra-nice person but because that's just not what those words mean anymore for most people. I don't mean I think 'well he IS stupid but that's not a nice way to say it so I'll say intellectually impaired instead" - I mean I don't connect the word to him or to other people with cognitive or intellectual disabilities. He's got a different brain and needs some help to get stuff done and to protect him from people who might take advantage of him. That's it.

Who do I think of as stupid? People with "normal" cognition who have the ability and obligation to not act foolishly or selfishly but who go on and do it anyway.

I don't know if you're trying to score some points here or what your deal is, but people with intellectual or cognitive disabilities don't need you to defend a woman who acted selfishly and foolishly in a way that could have easily killed people- and it's insulting to compare that women to them.

Exactly!

[quote PhilSwagielka]@CastawayQueen, you're spot on. I'm autistic and I'm tired of people assuming that someone must be autistic if they act like an arsehole. Plenty of us are capable of behaving decently, thanks. And I doubt the woman holding the sign was mentally disabled.[/quote]
Thank you! I am so tired of the MN mentality of dickhead = autistic. It happens over and over and over again.

MNers have the unique ability to diagnose - from a distance - other people as being autistic.