I have little interest in the Olympics or Paralympics unfortunately (although I think C4's advertising campaign for the paralympics deserves advertising campaign of the year). This has absolutely disgusted me.
I can't believe how little is being made of this, I have seen it reported in places, but even on the Guardian, they have an article about "Gold medals and white privilege" ahead of this.
Disgusting. Brazil should be completely ashamed of themselves. No surprise that their people are such a bunch of thieving bastards, just look at the people that lead them. .
Really?
2 people I work with were held up at gunpoint and had their wallets stolen, of 6 people that we have sent there. It really isn't a safe place to go.
Behave yourself. It's a country of 200m. None of my Brazilian family have ever thieved or held up anyone at gunpoint.
I have little interest in the Olympics or Paralympics unfortunately (although I think C4's advertising campaign for the paralympics deserves advertising campaign of the year). This has absolutely disgusted me.
I can't believe how little is being made of this, I have seen it reported in places, but even on the Guardian, they have an article about "Gold medals and white privilege" ahead of this.
Disgusting. Brazil should be completely ashamed of themselves. No surprise that their people are such a bunch of thieving bastards, just look at the people that lead them.
The poor and the rich, thieves.
If you're talking about the piece on Lochte by Marina Hyde, then yes, but only because from what I can tell (at least here) that has been one of the biggest bits of news to come out of the Olympics in the last few days. Good piece, highly recommend reading it.
It's the white privilege part of it that I have a complete objection to. The Guardian constantly pedals claims of prejudice at literally any opportunity. Lochte is a twat, a 32 year old toddler. "White privilege" has nothing to do with it. The Guardian is filled with as much shit as the Daily Mail. Both have hate at the top of their agenda, they just target different people. You could say that some have broader shoulders, but the Guardian and Daily Mail BOTH try and make you hate people for what are often illegitimate reasons.
Some of the people they have contributing "opinion" pieces are an absolute embarrassment to journalism. At least the Daily Mail has some entertaining articles (ones that have no political slant to them)
As far as white privilege goes, this literally came up on my news feed not 30 minutes ago. Based on their pictures, try to figure out who shot and killed nine people, and who saved his mother from a fire:
A demonic white person next to a really good black person... Your point? I could put a picture of Mother Theresa next to a picture of Mike Tyson, it doesn't prove anything, and it certainly isn't journalism.
So that was your impression upon seeing the pictures (NOT reading the captions below them)? Come on...
Oh right sorry I see what you mean, and yes your point is definitely valid. You could do the same with a picture of a Muslim who did a great act, and a picture of someone like Timothy McVeigh and say "guess which one killed over a hundred people." The fact is that in general people form stereotypes based on what they see in the media and what they see in real life. Unfortunately, for numerous reasons which we can have as mitigating factors, at face value, if you had to place a bet on who had killed people, you would go with the man who saved his mother. The pictures don't help to be fair... That kid looks like he would be selling lemonade on his front lawn.
I appreciate you going back and having another look. My point was simply to show that sometimes white people and people of colour are portrayed differently in the media. I don't know that you and I would agree on all that much politically, but I do appreciate you taking the time to go back and have a look. One photo comparison doesn't make an argument of course, but it's something to potentially look out for in future.
I have little interest in the Olympics or Paralympics unfortunately (although I think C4's advertising campaign for the paralympics deserves advertising campaign of the year). This has absolutely disgusted me.
I can't believe how little is being made of this, I have seen it reported in places, but even on the Guardian, they have an article about "Gold medals and white privilege" ahead of this.
Disgusting. Brazil should be completely ashamed of themselves. No surprise that their people are such a bunch of thieving bastards, just look at the people that lead them.
The poor and the rich, thieves.
If you're talking about the piece on Lochte by Marina Hyde, then yes, but only because from what I can tell (at least here) that has been one of the biggest bits of news to come out of the Olympics in the last few days. Good piece, highly recommend reading it.
It's the white privilege part of it that I have a complete objection to. The Guardian constantly pedals claims of prejudice at literally any opportunity. Lochte is a twat, a 32 year old toddler. "White privilege" has nothing to do with it. The Guardian is filled with as much shit as the Daily Mail. Both have hate at the top of their agenda, they just target different people. You could say that some have broader shoulders, but the Guardian and Daily Mail BOTH try and make you hate people for what are often illegitimate reasons.
Some of the people they have contributing "opinion" pieces are an absolute embarrassment to journalism. At least the Daily Mail has some entertaining articles (ones that have no political slant to them)
As far as white privilege goes, this literally came up on my news feed not 30 minutes ago. Based on their pictures, try to figure out who shot and killed nine people, and who saved his mother from a fire:
A demonic white person next to a really good black person... Your point? I could put a picture of Mother Theresa next to a picture of Mike Tyson, it doesn't prove anything, and it certainly isn't journalism.
So that was your impression upon seeing the pictures (NOT reading the captions below them)? Come on...
Oh right sorry I see what you mean, and yes your point is definitely valid. You could do the same with a picture of a Muslim who did a great act, and a picture of someone like Timothy McVeigh and say "guess which one killed over a hundred people." The fact is that in general people form stereotypes based on what they see in the media and what they see in real life. Unfortunately, for numerous reasons which we can have as mitigating factors, at face value, if you had to place a bet on who had killed people, you would go with the man who saved his mother. The pictures don't help to be fair... That kid looks like he would be selling lemonade on his front lawn.
I appreciate you going back and having another look. My point was simply to show that sometimes white people and people of colour are portrayed differently in the media. I don't know that you and I would agree on all that much politically, but I do appreciate you taking the time to go back and have a look. One photo comparison doesn't make an argument of course, but it's something to potentially look out for in future.
I agree, it definitely is something to potentially look at. Effectively the media promotes stereotypes because it reports largely on what actually happens For me the media (in general) reports what actually happens. The problem is that the people that are shown in the media are not necessarily reflective of the people in general from that background. The problem is that in general the statistics back up what the media is showing. Unfortunately the vast majority of gun violence is committed by young black men. That is a fact. The media is not necessarily changing the facts, it is just reporting them, the issue is it maybe doesn't report them always in an ethical way.
Politically, I am sure we could agree on plenty, and disagree on plenty more. My parents are both on the opposite side of the spectrum to me, as well as my 2 best friends. We all get along, and instead of getting angry at each other, enjoy the discussions and never fall out over them.
You made a good point, sorry I missed it the first time around!
Didn't think that was an acceptable term these days.
Here it's pretty commonly used to identify non-white people and as far as I know isn't considered offensive:
The term person of color (alternative spelling: person of colour, plural: people of color, persons of color, sometimes abbreviated POC[1]) is used primarily in the United States and Canada to describe any person who is not white. The term encompasses all non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of systemic racism.[2][3] The term is not equivalent in use to "colored", which was previously used in the US as a term for African Americans only.
Didn't think that was an acceptable term these days.
Here it's pretty commonly used to identify non-white people and as far as I know isn't considered offensive:
The term person of color (alternative spelling: person of colour, plural: people of color, persons of color, sometimes abbreviated POC[1]) is used primarily in the United States and Canada to describe any person who is not white. The term encompasses all non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of systemic racism.[2][3] The term is not equivalent in use to "colored", which was previously used in the US as a term for African Americans only.
I don't know if it has different connotations elsewhere, and if it does I apologize I was intending to highlight minority groups.
I once wrote in a psychology essay "coloured people" and I got a written note on it from the teacher when I got it handed back. I would never deliberately write something deemed offensive and racist in any way. In fact I spent quite a long time (at least a few minutes) determining what the correct phrase to use was. I was 17 at the time and genuinely thought that was the correct phrase to use.
Talk about red faced... It was so embarrassing because I really didn't mean it. I think there are a lot of people that say phrases that are not meant to cause any offence but do.
Cheers. As you say, difficult to keep up sometimes.
I was amazed when I found out about "The Sun has got his hat on" too. Which to me has always been as cheery and non-offensive dong as I could think of.
Times change, but you cant always judge the past on todays standards.
Didn't think that was an acceptable term these days.
Here it's pretty commonly used to identify non-white people and as far as I know isn't considered offensive:
The term person of color (alternative spelling: person of colour, plural: people of color, persons of color, sometimes abbreviated POC[1]) is used primarily in the United States and Canada to describe any person who is not white. The term encompasses all non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of systemic racism.[2][3] The term is not equivalent in use to "colored", which was previously used in the US as a term for African Americans only.
I don't know if it has different connotations elsewhere, and if it does I apologize I was intending to highlight minority groups.
I once wrote in a psychology essay "coloured people" and I got a written note on it from the teacher when I got it handed back. I would never deliberately write something deemed offensive and racist in any way. In fact I spent quite a long time (at least a few minutes) determining what the correct phrase to use was. I was 17 at the time and genuinely thought that was the correct phrase to use.
Talk about red faced... It was so embarrassing because I really didn't mean it. I think there are a lot of people that say phrases that are not meant to cause any offence but do.
Didn't think that was an acceptable term these days.
Here it's pretty commonly used to identify non-white people and as far as I know isn't considered offensive:
The term person of color (alternative spelling: person of colour, plural: people of color, persons of color, sometimes abbreviated POC[1]) is used primarily in the United States and Canada to describe any person who is not white. The term encompasses all non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of systemic racism.[2][3] The term is not equivalent in use to "colored", which was previously used in the US as a term for African Americans only.
I don't know if it has different connotations elsewhere, and if it does I apologize I was intending to highlight minority groups.
I once wrote in a psychology essay "coloured people" and I got a written note on it from the teacher when I got it handed back. I would never deliberately write something deemed offensive and racist in any way. In fact I spent quite a long time (at least a few minutes) determining what the correct phrase to use was. I was 17 at the time and genuinely thought that was the correct phrase to use.
Talk about red faced... It was so embarrassing because I really didn't mean it. I think there are a lot of people that say phrases that are not meant to cause any offence but do.
It's tough, absolutely. I know there are many who talk about struggling with correct labels and political correctness, but most people I know would take the time to explain "here's why that's not the best term to use." And speaking for myself, I try not to judge people on the language or verbiage they use. I've met plenty of people with prejudices who use all the "correct" terms, and others who may not but have all the best of intentions.
With "Colored" for example, I know that here in the states it evokes segregation and Jim Crow laws in the south in which there were restrooms, drinking fountains, schools etc. which were either "White" or "Colored." It is a really nasty, unpleasant time in American history--it essentially continued parts of slavery and a lower class based on skin color for 100 years after slavery technically ended. I don't know if it has any historical meaning in Britain, but I can certainly understand why someone (especially a 17 year old) wouldn't understand that or know the intricate details of segregation in the American south.
Didn't think that was an acceptable term these days.
Here it's pretty commonly used to identify non-white people and as far as I know isn't considered offensive:
The term person of color (alternative spelling: person of colour, plural: people of color, persons of color, sometimes abbreviated POC[1]) is used primarily in the United States and Canada to describe any person who is not white. The term encompasses all non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of systemic racism.[2][3] The term is not equivalent in use to "colored", which was previously used in the US as a term for African Americans only.
I don't know if it has different connotations elsewhere, and if it does I apologize I was intending to highlight minority groups.
I once wrote in a psychology essay "coloured people" and I got a written note on it from the teacher when I got it handed back. I would never deliberately write something deemed offensive and racist in any way. In fact I spent quite a long time (at least a few minutes) determining what the correct phrase to use was. I was 17 at the time and genuinely thought that was the correct phrase to use.
Talk about red faced... It was so embarrassing because I really didn't mean it. I think there are a lot of people that say phrases that are not meant to cause any offence but do.
It's tough, absolutely. I know there are many who talk about struggling with correct labels and political correctness, but most people I know would take the time to explain "here's why that's not the best term to use." And speaking for myself, I try not to judge people on the language or verbiage they use. I've met plenty of people with prejudices who use all the "correct" terms, and others who may not but have all the best of intentions.
With "Colored" for example, I know that here in the states it evokes segregation and Jim Crow laws in the south in which there were restrooms, drinking fountains, schools etc. which were either "White" or "Colored." It is a really nasty, unpleasant time in American history--it essentially continued parts of slavery and a lower class based on skin color for 100 years after slavery technically ended. I don't know if it has any historical meaning in Britain, but I can certainly understand why someone (especially a 17 year old) wouldn't understand that or know the intricate details of segregation in the American south.
That sentence sums it all up perfectly. You can be an absolute racist but use all the correct terminology, or you can be someone ho accidentally steps on a mine in the minefield that is (and I think this is one of the few cases that this actually applies) political correctness.
The problem is that any term, no matter how well meaning the original coiner of the phrase, will eventually become a derogatory term.
So half caste was deemed racist and mixed race was the accepted term, and now that is racist (first I've heard of that, and I have a niece and 2 future brother-in-laws who are of mixed parentage)
Similarly in my life we've seen the transition from invalid > disabled > special needs > differently abled.
Every term used to identify a minority can and will be twisted and used offensively at some stage. As a society we probably need to mature beyond simple labels.
The obvious one is that our transatlantic friends still can't spell - it's coloUr, ok ?
The second thing is the main subject - swerving back on topic it must surely be unprecedented that a major global tournament is thrown into jeopardy so close to its opening. Did FIFA in Zurich and the IOC in Geneva not manage to get together in their small country and fathom out that the World Cup and the Olympics only two years apart would be too much to bear ? Or was it a case of Buy One Get One Free ....
The obvious one is that our transatlantic friends still can't spell - it's coloUr, ok ?
The second thing is the main subject - swerving back on topic it must surely be unprecedented that a major global tournament is thrown into jeopardy so close to its opening. Did FIFA in Zurich and the IOC in Geneva not manage to get together in their small country and fathom out that the World Cup and the Olympics only two years apart would be too much to bear ? Or was it a case of Buy One Get One Free ....
When Brazil bid for both, they were one of the boom economies, one of the BRICs. Since then their economy has tanked, and unlike Britain, they haven't got the resilience to cope
To suddenly refuse to reimburse travel expenses for athletes who have been preparing for four years for this and with 50 of the presumably poorer countries considering having to drop out as a result is a total shocker.
The IOC should stump up the cash and take legal action against Brazil to recover their losses. What sort of message is being given out. Progress is being halted!
It's a scandal I worked closely with the 2012 UK paralympic team and the marketing behind selling them as a stand alone massive sporting Spectacle which it turned into, the people from the uk that I met were inspirational, some I met from extremely less financially privileged countries even more so
The sponsors should force the IOC to intervene as those companies put vast sums of money into both games and treat them as separate entities,
It's a Fucking embarrassment that no one has stepped in to fix this I am disappointed and disgusted this is happening in 2016 it's so much more of a scandal that Russian doping and should be being destroyed on the BBC with questions being asked of the IOC, channel 4 (correct me if I am wrong) are showing it and they should be pushing hard for change due to the amount they have paid to have the rights
I have little interest in the Olympics or Paralympics unfortunately (although I think C4's advertising campaign for the paralympics deserves advertising campaign of the year). This has absolutely disgusted me.
I can't believe how little is being made of this, I have seen it reported in places, but even on the Guardian, they have an article about "Gold medals and white privilege" ahead of this.
Disgusting. Brazil should be completely ashamed of themselves. No surprise that their people are such a bunch of thieving bastards, just look at the people that lead them.
The poor and the rich, thieves.
If you're talking about the piece on Lochte by Marina Hyde, then yes, but only because from what I can tell (at least here) that has been one of the biggest bits of news to come out of the Olympics in the last few days. Good piece, highly recommend reading it.
It's the white privilege part of it that I have a complete objection to. The Guardian constantly pedals claims of prejudice at literally any opportunity. Lochte is a twat, a 32 year old toddler. "White privilege" has nothing to do with it. The Guardian is filled with as much shit as the Daily Mail. Both have hate at the top of their agenda, they just target different people. You could say that some have broader shoulders, but the Guardian and Daily Mail BOTH try and make you hate people for what are often illegitimate reasons.
Some of the people they have contributing "opinion" pieces are an absolute embarrassment to journalism. At least the Daily Mail has some entertaining articles (ones that have no political slant to them)
Apologies for continuing the derailment of this thread, but I couldn't let this one go. Sorry Husky, the Grauniad also has entertaining pieces when there is no political slant.
If both games suffered due to lack of money it would be a different matter. But Brazil has looked at its finances, seen it was short and diverted money for the Paralympics into the Olympics. By doing this, it is sending a message that disabled people are much less important than non disabled ones. Having said that, there is lots to do in this country but we are ahead of others so maybe it shouldn't be a surprise. There is an argument that by having it in a country like Brazil, it will improve the way it treats and respects its disabled people. I'm not so sure- I think the solution may be to select the venue for the paralympics seperately. Maybe be not, but this can't just be accepted.
I am bothered because the paralympics was growing into something big and it is the duty of the IOC to ensure it continues to grow. This could set it back years.
Brazil took the Olympics and Para Olympics --they got it on the assurances that there would be the same commitment to both----now they are back tracking and not fulfilling their commitment ----shame on them.
It looks increasingly like there are only a few countries and (maybe 20 max) that can afford to stage an Olympics and Para Olympics, so stop the glob trotting and pick from a smaller pool or split the Para Olympics and give it a "home base". Where the athletes will be treated as athletes and given the resources and facilities as they deserve.As well as the full media exposure Lets say USA/UK to start with and then expand from there.
I have little interest in the Olympics or Paralympics unfortunately (although I think C4's advertising campaign for the paralympics deserves advertising campaign of the year). This has absolutely disgusted me.
I can't believe how little is being made of this, I have seen it reported in places, but even on the Guardian, they have an article about "Gold medals and white privilege" ahead of this.
Disgusting. Brazil should be completely ashamed of themselves. No surprise that their people are such a bunch of thieving bastards, just look at the people that lead them.
The poor and the rich, thieves.
If you're talking about the piece on Lochte by Marina Hyde, then yes, but only because from what I can tell (at least here) that has been one of the biggest bits of news to come out of the Olympics in the last few days. Good piece, highly recommend reading it.
It's the white privilege part of it that I have a complete objection to. The Guardian constantly pedals claims of prejudice at literally any opportunity. Lochte is a twat, a 32 year old toddler. "White privilege" has nothing to do with it. The Guardian is filled with as much shit as the Daily Mail. Both have hate at the top of their agenda, they just target different people. You could say that some have broader shoulders, but the Guardian and Daily Mail BOTH try and make you hate people for what are often illegitimate reasons.
Some of the people they have contributing "opinion" pieces are an absolute embarrassment to journalism. At least the Daily Mail has some entertaining articles (ones that have no political slant to them)
Apologies for continuing the derailment of this thread, but I couldn't let this one go. Sorry Husky, the Grauniad also has entertaining pieces when there is no political slant.
I have to admit I do quite enjoy some of their pieces, but the Daily Mail has rows and rows of articles that are basically what I would consider to unimportant to be headline news, but still an article in itself. Man bites dog kind of articles if you know what I mean.
If both games suffered due to lack of money it would be a different matter. But Brazil has looked at its finances, seen it was short and diverted money for the Paralympics into the Olympics. By doing this, it is sending a message that disabled people are much less important than non disabled ones. Having said that, there is lots to do in this country but we are ahead of others so maybe it shouldn't be a surprise. There is an argument that by having it in a country like Brazil, it will improve the way it treats and respects its disabled people. I'm not so sure- I think the solution may be to select the venue for the paralympics seperately. Maybe be not, but this can't just be accepted.
I am bothered because the paralympics was growing into something big and it is the duty of the IOC to ensure it continues to grow. This could set it back years.
Brazil took the Olympics and Para Olympics --they got it on the assurances that there would be the same commitment to both----now they are back tracking and not fulfilling their commitment ----shame on them.
It looks increasingly like there are only a few countries and (maybe 20 max) that can afford to stage an Olympics and Para Olympics, so stop the glob trotting and pick from a smaller pool or split the Para Olympics and give it a "home base". Where the athletes will be treated as athletes and given the resources and facilities as they deserve.As well as the full media exposure Lets say USA/UK to start with and then expand from there.
Absolutely. The paralympics for me are just as important as the Olympics, not necessarily in terms of entertainment value, not in terms of "the best person" at that sport etc, but it is 100% as important as the Olympics for what it symbolises. There needs to be proper audits into whether nations can actually afford games, and to be honest, maybe we are at the point where only fully developed countries can be considered. This sort of thing wouldn't happen if someone like Germany, for example, was hosting.
On a side note, the fact that so few tickets have been sold is somewhat a reflection on Brazilian people themselves, and their attitudes towards disabled people. Obviously the host nation citizens are generally going to be the main ticket buyers, and it just isn't happening in Brazil. Maybe another reason why more Westernised, forward thinking nations should be picked.
One thing is for sure, the whole Rio Olympics will have a stain on it from this in my opinion. And it certainly reflects poorly on Brazil.
We had a mighty task following on from Bejing and we were up to the job. Tokyo will hardly be sweating too much following on from Rio. I think normal service will be resumed with the Japanese,
Comments
Didn't think that was an acceptable term these days.
Politically, I am sure we could agree on plenty, and disagree on plenty more. My parents are both on the opposite side of the spectrum to me, as well as my 2 best friends. We all get along, and instead of getting angry at each other, enjoy the discussions and never fall out over them.
You made a good point, sorry I missed it the first time around!
The term person of color (alternative spelling: person of colour, plural: people of color, persons of color, sometimes abbreviated POC[1]) is used primarily in the United States and Canada to describe any person who is not white. The term encompasses all non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of systemic racism.[2][3] The term is not equivalent in use to "colored", which was previously used in the US as a term for African Americans only.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color
I don't know if it has different connotations elsewhere, and if it does I apologize I was intending to highlight minority groups.
Coloured people = not fine
Trying to keep up with what different ethnic groups are called today is difficult, and in my opinion doesn't really help race relations.
Talk about red faced... It was so embarrassing because I really didn't mean it. I think there are a lot of people that say phrases that are not meant to cause any offence but do.
I was amazed when I found out about "The Sun has got his hat on" too. Which to me has always been as cheery and non-offensive dong as I could think of.
Times change, but you cant always judge the past on todays standards.
With "Colored" for example, I know that here in the states it evokes segregation and Jim Crow laws in the south in which there were restrooms, drinking fountains, schools etc. which were either "White" or "Colored." It is a really nasty, unpleasant time in American history--it essentially continued parts of slavery and a lower class based on skin color for 100 years after slavery technically ended. I don't know if it has any historical meaning in Britain, but I can certainly understand why someone (especially a 17 year old) wouldn't understand that or know the intricate details of segregation in the American south.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive
Reading this article, according to the British Sociological Association mixed race is also not to be used, and instead mixed parentage is preferred...
So half caste was deemed racist and mixed race was the accepted term, and now that is racist (first I've heard of that, and I have a niece and 2 future brother-in-laws who are of mixed parentage)
Similarly in my life we've seen the transition from invalid > disabled > special needs > differently abled.
Every term used to identify a minority can and will be twisted and used offensively at some stage. As a society we probably need to mature beyond simple labels.
Two things being overlooked here.
The obvious one is that our transatlantic friends still can't spell - it's coloUr, ok ?
The second thing is the main subject - swerving back on topic it must surely be unprecedented that a major global tournament is thrown into jeopardy so close to its opening. Did FIFA in Zurich and the IOC in Geneva not manage to get together in their small country and fathom out that the World Cup and the Olympics only two years apart would be too much to bear ? Or was it a case of Buy One Get One Free ....
The reason these things happen is because they can be brushed under the carpet without real outrage
Where as God forbid someone calls someone coloured the whole Fucking world gets offended seemingly
To suddenly refuse to reimburse travel expenses for athletes who have been preparing for four years for this and with 50 of the presumably poorer countries considering having to drop out as a result is a total shocker.
The sponsors should force the IOC to intervene as those companies put vast sums of money into both games and treat them as separate entities,
It's a Fucking embarrassment that no one has stepped in to fix this I am disappointed and disgusted this is happening in 2016 it's so much more of a scandal that Russian doping and should be being destroyed on the BBC with questions being asked of the IOC, channel 4 (correct me if I am wrong) are showing it and they should be pushing hard for change due to the amount they have paid to have the rights
Fuck you IOC and brasil
I am bothered because the paralympics was growing into something big and it is the duty of the IOC to ensure it continues to grow. This could set it back years.
It looks increasingly like there are only a few countries and (maybe 20 max) that can afford to stage an Olympics and Para Olympics, so stop the glob trotting and pick from a smaller pool or split the Para Olympics and give it a "home base". Where the athletes will be treated as athletes and given the resources and facilities as they deserve.As well as the full media exposure
Lets say USA/UK to start with and then expand from there.
On a side note, the fact that so few tickets have been sold is somewhat a reflection on Brazilian people themselves, and their attitudes towards disabled people. Obviously the host nation citizens are generally going to be the main ticket buyers, and it just isn't happening in Brazil. Maybe another reason why more Westernised, forward thinking nations should be picked.
One thing is for sure, the whole Rio Olympics will have a stain on it from this in my opinion. And it certainly reflects poorly on Brazil.