October was Disability Awareness Month. Such recognitions can be of significant value in helping people to remember a variety of causes and needs in society. The U.S. Department of Labor notes this but also adds that we can pursue "year-round efforts" at appreciating and understanding the challenges of disability.
The topic came to my mind again in a random article on the British Broadcasting Corporation in November. The author, Alex Taylor, uses a wheelchair and relates his experiences with that tool and a cartoon character from a television show that started a quarter century ago, in 1997.
Mr. Taylor relates that the show, South Park, had a wheelchair-using character named Timmy. He perceives that character cast a "shadow" over his youth when people would see him in his chair and shout "Timmy." He was, at least in his perception, labeled with this pop-culture presentation of someone reliant upon such a device.
He expresses praise for the character and the writers who created it. Timmy is described as having "warmth" and "character." There is a description of the satire of the show and the avoidance, perhaps, of disability being the joke. In it, Mr. Taylor found criticism of the way people perceive and react to "disabled people," a positive side-effect of the satire and direction of the show generally.
He also concludes that Timmy was a popular character and noted critics described the character "as the most 'progressive, provocative and socially relevant disability humor ever presented on American television.'” Mr. Taylor notes value in the character challenging the viewer, the views, and the perceptions.
His angst over being confronted with periodic public "Timmy!" assaults apparently waned over the years. Those teenagers who were enthralled with its rendition as the last century concluded apparently matured and the catcalls of "Timmy!" faded.
But now they are back.
The article recounts how the "phenomenon ha(s) returned to a new young generation." Through the wonders and magic of social media, today's youth is "take(ing) part in trends by using the audio of popular videos" with their own video creations. TikTok is specifically mentioned, but the spectrum of potentials is broad.
So, the character of "Timmy!" has returned to Mr. Taylor's life, and perhaps to others' as well. Mr. Taylor recounts how he responds to the exuberant "Timmy" as he encounters it today. With the young, his simple response is merely "really?" But for the older, he writes to express the pain caused by this simple reference, seen by too many as a simple and acceptable humor.
There are a vast variety of humans on this planet, and we are persistent in our interactions. We are often in close proximity to our fellow travelers. and can frequently choose how to engage them, or not. But there is a limit to the breadth of avoidance for anyone.
Another interesting example was recently published by the BBC regarding ordeals a blind man faces with his guide dog. In it, there is perhaps a valuable comparison or illustration. He recounts various instances of being turned away by restaurants that do not welcome his dog, despite it being his "guide." with legal protections. He has apparently publicized these on social media and received messages and support.
However, the messages have not always been positive, nor have real-time reactions from fellow patrons. Interestingly, his plea is that he be treated equally. This may come down to a matter of perspective, as equality may be in the eyes of the beholder.
From his perspective, equal means him being able to access services such as a restaurant, despite that necessitating the attendance of a canine. To others, equality might be being able to eat in a public restaurant without the tribulations that come from their allergies to, or fears of, canines. Here we would have a collision of individual rights, and likely no overriding and undeniable "correct" answer.
In one, a patron is turned away because he must have a dog. In the other, a patron is turned away by the presence of a dog. The law steps in to ameliorate a harm to one. However, some would see that legal solution as merely creating a burden on the other individual. Whose health, comfort, and accommodation are the more important for society to protect?
The bottom line, in our complex society, is that there will be instances in which the rights of various individuals will collide. The law will struggle with sorting those particular conflicts, both in crafting and interpretation. Many harken to a quote attributed to Ruth Ginsburg: "Equal rights for others does not mean less rights for you. It's not pie." That is an unfortunate characterization.
Pie is precisely what it may be. More for one dose not mean less for another? Tell that to the person who must forego peanuts or the person who must suffer the exposure. One must have less rights than the other. The inevitability of that is intractable. Society, politicians, and laws will strive to create and impose balance among them, but inevitably those conflicts will at least periodically mean "less rights" for someone.
That is challenging, and to many will be troubling. One airline patron insists on peanuts, and the passenger across the aisle readies her/himself to administer a medication if there is a reaction. Their proximity in a public accommodation brings their individual rights and desires to the fore, along with the potential for conflict. It is complex.
Less so, I suggest, is the boisterous "Timmy." Just as we might accept that the dog, peanut, allergy conflict is difficult, we might as easily accept that the "Timmy!" is easy. There is insult and damage to the "Timmy," and no countervailing value or conflicting right.
Certainly, some would say "freedom of expression." Yes, you technically have the right to say anything you wish in most regards. Except on some subjects and some platforms. But there is harm there, in that flippant "Timmy!," without corresponding benefit. There is no value in "Timmy" other than demeaning someone for the sake of a laugh, and there is no value in such a laugh.
The discussions of rights will continue. There will be persistent and recurrent conflict and friction. There will be difficult choices of who gets how much pie. But there will also be examples that offer simple solutions, like don't shout Timmy for your own entertainment at someone else's expense.
For clarity, you are nonetheless welcome to ridicule people for their selection of favorite football teams, etc. That is a choice. Often a poor one, but a choice.
