I didn't care for that bit, because the jokes depended on the ableist assumption that the only possible way to recognize someone is by sight. Surely a genuinely blind woman could have recognized Olivia by her voice, so it didn't work to say that recognizing Olivia proved that she could see.
I agree. Even though the questionably blind woman said, in so many words, that she's "seen both of [Abby and Olivia] . . . a bunch of times," she could very well have been speaking figuratively. The whole scene could have been written in better taste.
I wonder though, would a blind person
really use "i see you" casually, and
not deliberately? Wouldn't they more likely use words like: met, encountered, heard, smelled???
I didn't mind that line, since it was the giveaway that she was faking being blind, but it was the earlier bit where Olivia just assumed that being recognized meant the woman could see.
Although I wish there'd been a bit more exploration of just why she was faking blindness. Was it so she had an excuse to get her horse on the subway? Why was that important to her? There's a story there that could've been funny. Even comedy should have some character logic holding it together, some relatable motivation for why characters do absurd things.
Lt. Commander Data, er Christopher, it's comedy. Do we
really need to be in depth here?
So glad Christopher is here to pepper our fun discussion with such fancy words as ableist, misogynist, conservative backlash...
ANd he suddenly says it's a casual converation despite using a serious word as ableist (on the level of racist or sexist). And misogynist is laughable, as he often points out if a woman is beautiful in a show (but never if a guy is handsome). And WHAT conservative backlash???
We seem to be skipping past the fact that the woman actually could see and wasn't trying very hard to hide it. That, really, was the joke. That and the horse.
I am with you on that.
That's not the issue. The issue is that Olivia and Dan assumed that because she recognized Olivia, it meant she must have been able to see. It didn't occur to them -- or to the writers -- that blind people can recognize people by their voices, or perhaps by the scent of their perfume or shampoo or whatever. They just assumed that people can only be recognized by sight. Which, as I already explained, is ableist because it assumes that blind people are less capable than they really are. It's also just foolish on the part of the writers for failing to see the obvious hole in their logic.
How is it ableist? The defendent
suddenly brought up the issue that she and Olivia supposedly had a previous relationship (i don't mean romantic, but rewind that scene several times, as i did, in preparation for this message thread). If that actually happened, Olivia would have had to recuse herself, did she not? And Olivia gave no indication that she had seen the defendent before, despite the defendent somehow knowing the exact time Olivia takes the train. The defendent
never said anything like she recognized her voice nor smell of her perfume, or anything. In fact, she didn't allege that
she "saw" Olivia -- it was the horse. Which again, is absurd (and part of the joke).
We're just having a conversation about a minor issue. Let's keep it casual, okay?
.
You are the one bringing up a serious charge of ableism (which is on the level of racism and sexism).
You have been going on and on about how bad this comic scene is.
And
you are the one acting like the "allegedly blind woman" (according to Olivia)... switching your defense when your first argument is successfully disputed.
So, no...we are going to rise to the level of severity
you brought this conversation to.
Because he's gotten to know her? This is now episode 7, and we have seen them hang out in the cafeteria. And even if she never mentioned to him that she didn't talk on the subway, he certainly has gotten an impression of her general attitude, her specific attitude towards strangers, and considering Olivia shares a good deal of personality traits with Dan (especially his younger self from the original show) could have easily come to the conclusion by himself.
And sorry if I appeared short-tempered in my previous post, but to be fair, you have been arguing over this for several days and more than one thread page now.
No
@Kai "the spy" , you are in the right. It is Christopher who is the one who ought to be humble, and admit he was actually wrong, rather than act like the defendent in the episode..
