Wait–what? What his voice amplified during this?
Yes, he was seated 40 rows back from the stage, but they place some live mikes in the seats to pick up the background “buzz” of the event. He was seated quite near one of these, and as he understates, “with hindsight I have to question whether this was wise”.
My suspicion is they did this deliberately, hoping for some juicy swears to get publicity for their awards show, and not really thinking through the possible downside.
Forty seats back, but still next to a mike. Two hour tape delay, but they left it in. Specific request by Warner Brothers to edit out the slurs ~30 minutes after they happened in real life, which was ignored. Oh, and they edited out anti-gay tics he said when Alan Cummings was on stage, but not the anti-Black slurs when Lindo and Jackson were up there.
It’s just such a clusterfuck of incredibly bad decisions, It’s really hard not to think that this was intentional. “Never attribute to malice,” and all that, but how is someone this incompetent allowed to run something this high profile?
Wow. I missed this–as, I suspect, did Loach.
And they edited out Cummings’ anti-Trump joke, and the person yelling about Palestine.,.
You could start with making a fair paraphrase which you didn’t.
He was talking about one individual situation, not about all disabled people.
He said nothing about an attic. He said nothing about people being disturbed by anyone’s appearance.
What were you thinking?
Someone here said he himself was miked and someone else said that there were mics spread throughout audience for ambient room sound.
Does anyone have a cite that says that this guy was wearing a microphone? And ambient sound is utilized in pretty much any program like this but it’s indistinct sound and used just to add room tone and audience hum to the overall sound (IOW, ambiance). Not to listen in on audience members. But they will pickup shouts and yells and sneezes.
I would think ambient sound would be picked-up by mics up on the walls or shotgun mics from the stage pointed at the general direction of the audience, not but people in the audience being individually miked-up.
And, especially because he has Tourette’s, I can’t imagine why they would include discreet sound from a personal mic to add to the program audio. Unless someone can show a cite that he was indeed individually miked I strongly doubt he was (he might have had a mic but if so it almost surely was for a later news or documentary project, NOT to deliberately add his outbursts with pinpoint perfect sound and levels to the broadcast program.
The article I linked about ten posts up addresses that. He was not individually miked up, but there were mikes scattered throughout the seating area, and he was seated near one of them. I have no idea how standard that is in these situations, but I haven’t seen anything suggesting that was unusual in and of itself.
And I’m not even sure how much it matters. Obviously leaving the mike on was gross incompetence, but he was only 40 rows back from the stage in a room specifically designed to conduct sound. He might well have been audible even without the microphone.
I don’t know, maybe I’m just bad at judging people’s reactions to what seems to me obvious hyperbole.
I feel like I said some anti-abortion politician “wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant” and people are piling on accusing me of some vile slander, because the politician in question doesn’t literally want to forbid women from wearing shoes. Maybe the trope of Victorians locking disabled people in the attic isn’t as well known as I assumed it was?
I had a similar issue in another thread today when I remarked that Indiana was going to spend tax dollars on a new Bears stadium rather than on its public schools, and someone went into a tizzy because it’s not literally true that money is going to be removed directly from the public school budget in order to pay for the stadium. Am I bad at expressing myself or are a lot of Dopers just hyper-literal pedants? Probably some of both.
Ok. You joined after me. But really were noobs, still, to some of the Dopers. Probably always will be.
Best practice hush tryna explain it. Reiterating. Doubling down.
It will get you nothing but frustration and pain
Leave it be. You said it. Wrong or right. It’s done.
Move on.
Obvious hyperbole is not the rhetorical flex you’re hoping it is. If you describe someone as saying something much worse than what they actually said, then when people look at what they actually said, the bar is set so high that the natural response is, “Huh, that’s not so bad.”
That’s how I responded, and I think a lot of folks responded similarly. The distance between your hyperbole and Loach’s comment was so great that the distance itself became the focus.
Fair point. Thanks for the feedback. It honestly never occurred to me that anyone would think I was claiming he actually said that in so many words.
Oo! (raises hand)
No problem with his being there; all he needed to do was switch off the stupid mic they stuck in front of him.
Let me put it this way. When I came out as trans, and my family was doing their best to hush up my existence, I got newfound appreciation for Bertha Mason. Fortunately they relented before I torched any houses.
Jesus. Sorry to hear that.
Kinda feel like burning the place down would be appropriate.
This.
Honestly, i think random slurs at the grocery store are worse because there’s no one in charge. There’s no one with the power to turn off the mike. And you need to go there, and you need to go back next week, and it really sucks if you become uncomfortable at the grocery store. I have no idea what people with tourette’s do about that, i hope there are better alternatives than insulting all the people you are around.
But at an awards ceremony, there are people in charge who can warn the other participants of the risks, and minimize them. By shutting off the damn mike and editing the tape.
I think it’s, at the very most charitable interpretation, grow incompetence of BAFTA.
Fuck you with your AI slop.
Read that shit and delete it
You are blocked.
Am I missing something here where there is something offensive about ChatGPTs comparison of normal collecting vs hoarding disorders?
Yes, you’re missing the fact that some folks here have a deeply ingrained hatred of AI.
I think it’s fine to be cynical about the motives of the big AI tech companies, but blanket dismissal of the tools themselves is just shortsighted and foolish.
Many/Most people here, myself included, aren’t interested in AI written answers, for a variety of reasons.
Personally, when I see a post that was written by AI, I skim right past it. I’m not wasting my time reading something that may well be incorrect.
Also, personally, I wouldn’t be against a rule that required posters to make it blindingly obvious when their post was written/‘researched’ by AI. I know people generally mention it, ie ‘I asked ChatGPT…’, but I think it should be more obvious than that. Something more along the lines of it being required, for example, to be in a quote box with blue text or maybe collapsed (‘hide details’) with something explaining it. Similar to how mods collapse posts that are unrelated to the thread when they’re trying to get things back on track.
Also, I think, at the very least, the poster should be posting the links to wherever the bot got it’s data from, if they’re provided.
While this is the pit, so standards are considerably lower, in your case you asked it a semi-medical question and I think if you want a real answer, you should be looking at real sources, not that. When I put that same question into google, Gemini gave me a similar AI answer, but provided links to nhs dot uk, the mayo clinic, the international OCD foundation and a few others, that’s on top of the results you’d expect google to provide. Most any of those are probably better than the AI slop you cut and pasted and they’re absolutely more trustworthy.
To be clear, I’m not saying an AI answer is necessarily wrong, I’m saying I don’t know that it’s right. In my opinion, an AI answer carries about as much weight (or maybe a bit less) as an uncited answer from a random poster. In either case, if I wanted to springboard off that answer, I’d have to go find cites anyways.
Again, to be fair, this is the pit, not FQ or one of the more cite oriented areas of the board, but a lot of us here are uninterested in AI answers. AI to help find sources, sure, but AI answers, not so much.