When my mother was dying of covid, she was in intense pain and disoriented and terrified. She had told me several times that she didn’t want heroic measures, she wanted to avoid pain. I failed her. She was in a lot of pain.
When the morphine finally showed up (FedEx lost it. Not stolen, it showed up a day late, after my BIL was able to fill a new prescription from a local pharmacy. I pit FedEx…) it was a godsend. Yes, she fell asleep. That was so much better than crying out in pain. Her breathing actually improved after they got her pain under control.
Opiates are scary drugs and can be really nasty, but in the right circumstances, they are also good.
I don’t resent the fact that the doctors, and my dad, gave my mom oxy. She was in so much pain. It was the only thing to do.
As I learned when my father died two years later, there is no good way to die from cancer. Either the disease kills you, or the treatment will. The treatment gave my mom 9 years she wouldn’t have had otherwise. Nobody regrets that.
What the actual fuck? Loach in the “Discussions for Polls Only Thread” argues that disabled people should be kept locked in the attic their entire lives because people might find their behavior or appearance disturbing. I’d always thought he was a good poster, but apparently he’s a complete fucking asshole.
That’s not a fair reading of what he said at all. I might be sympathetic to pushing back on what he says, but not when it’s such a dishonest paraphrase.
Loach is the former cop (or maybe current) who thought that he could tell with 100% accuracy that someone has recently smoked weed. He also for some insane reason didn’t realize that the term California Sober was intended to be ironic. Dude has a ridiculous blind spot when it comes to cannabis which is very disappointing for a member of law enforcement.
Edit: That said, I agree with LHOD that what he said in the post linked above isn’t unreasonable at all. I should have read that first.
The above quote is not a fair charactization of the below quote.
IT WAS. And reportedly the BBC bleeped out other slurs and outbursts, including a homophobic one aimed at host Alan Cumming. Which supports your next point…
I know it’s not very progressive to say this but maybe he shouldn’t be there if he can’t stop yelling homophobic and racial slurs while he’s there?
I don’t agree with Loach, but I agree less with your characterization of it.
I think it’s a fine paraphrase. He doesn’t believe people with certain disabilities should be permitted in public spaces.
Maybe he meant that disabled people should have the decency to choose to never go out in public, not that they should be forcibly prevented from doing so.
Maybe he feels that awards ceremonies are some special exception, and that people who randomly shout racist slurs should be permitted in most places, since nobody is likely to be offended there.
I don’t see how you can explain this statement in any way that isn’t completely fucked up.
Sounds more to me that he’s suggesting the man could self-decline invitations to places where it’s going to be a issue. Not that I agree in this case at all (since the award is for a movie about him), just that it’s a more reasonable interpretation of what he wrote.
He may have meant that, but it’s still completely fucked up. It boils down to “keep them locked in the attic”, because there isn’t any place he could possibly go where it isn’t going to be an issue.
I assume there is a middle ground between “locked in the attic” and “on a live televised major awards show”. Not that I’m endorsing what Loach said, but you’re taking it to a ridiculous extreme here and presenting a false dichotomy.
But shouting a racial slur at the checkout stand in a grocery store or chatting with friends while hanging out is less likely to cause a major incident.
Again, I don’t agree with Loach, I don’t think people should take offense when these things happen compulsively. There is absolutely zero malice from a person with Tourette’s who literally doesn’t mean what they are saying and can’t control it, and I don’t think he or anyone else with that condition should be barred from a public event.
But to say that suggesting a person shouldn’t attend such an event isn’t the same as saying they literally can’t be allowed out anywhere in public, and it’s bullshit slander to say otherwise.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that. Why is it OK to expose people in a grocery store checkout line to racist language, but not people attending an awards ceremony?
The thing is, you’re completely committed to the position that these are the same thing, and keep doubling down on this position. I don’t think you’re interested in the answer to this question or open to the possibility that there’s a good answer to it.
It’s BAFTA who fucked up. This all could have unfolded in a much less hurtful way. Rather than downplaying the potential consequences they could have brought everyone together and said, “Look, there is a high probability that this man will be shouting involuntary racial slurs. This is how his disease works.” People could get to know the guy and his intent. Then they could talk about how to make it as accommodating as possible for both the Black presenters and the man with Tourettes. It’s completely unreasonable to expect a man with Tourettes to not attend such an important event in his life. But it’s also unreasonable to expect Black people to not have feelings about having racial slurs shouted while they are having their own important moment. BAFTA ruined this happy occasion for all of them. Any responsible approach would have planned for this. The actors and audience should have been warned, not with milquetoast “someone may shout something disruptive tonight” but with, “Look, you’re probably going to hear highly offensive language including racial slurs. It’s not intentional, it’s a disability.”
My husband is torn up about this. He specializes in Tourettes and it’s hitting the community hard. People are now afraid to leave the house.
I hope BAFTA is sued into oblivion by all involved parties.
The traditional, repressive approach has been to make no accommodations whatsoever for the disabled: it’s the comfort of the neurotypicals that matters, and the neurodiverse can go hang.
But the reverse sometimes shows up in neurodiverse discourse: it’s the comfort of the neurodiverse that matters, and the neurotypicals can go hang.
In some situations, there’s no solution that’ll be perfect for both parties: their needs for comfort are fundamentally incompatible. When that happens, a messy, uncomfortable compromise should be sought, in which neither party is rendered miserable, but both parties make allowances for their own discomfort in acknowledgment of one another.
The rest of how you described it, @Spice_Weasel, is great, and thank you for that.