John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

Engage with what? I'm afraid you're the one not engaging. I asked a straightforward question that you didn't answer. Instead you just gave a lecture on the theory of magical language, a point about context, an analogy about Welsh miners. Zero examples. Your post didn't address what I asked, so there wasn't anything to "engage" with.

If you don't have an example, there's no need to speak for anyone else or pretend otherwise. Just ignore.

Voldemort is a good one though, but I can't say I've noticed a demographic of Voldemorts yet.

How about "Voldemort".

Really, if you won't engage with what people say, why would anyone bother speaking to you.

I actually think the judgement in the second case you link is poor because, during a legal judgement, it never once says what the word in question is. It's unclear.

Not a single person is unclear about what the word was in that judgment.

Yes, that happens when an interaction happens over the course of several days. I'm afraid I can't be bothered reading back to refresh my memory, quite frankly, as you don't seem to have anything of interest to add to the discussion.

No, it seems you never are. I suggest you refer back to our previous conversation.

@PencilsInSpace
"Also the employer had mischaracterised the claimant as not showing remorse when in fact he was extremely apologetic and said he felt terrible about the distress caused."

I'm sure he said he was, yes. I address the case in a comment up thread, discussing what the incident actually was, which was him bringing up a racist incident from 1985 at an anti-radicalisation session. A little odd and very unnecessary.

"I'm amazed you're OK with it."

That's strange, because I've made it quite clear that I personally don't think the word is one that can never be said. Just that, where there is no need to use it, why do so? I actually think the judgement in the second case you link is poor because, during a legal judgement, it never once says what the word in question is. It's unclear.

I'm not sure what your point is?

@OtterlyAstounding The BBC article you posted earlier is good and expresses a few things I've been trying to say:

"It's the filthiest, dirtiest, nastiest word in the English language." - Christopher Darden, prosecutor in the OJ Simpson trial

"It's actually probably the most offensive word in English," - David Lammy

Dr Stanford says white people cannot use the word because its origin in slavery hasn't been lost.

"These are people who have created the word in the first place, but who have now lost power in relation to it, they have lost the power to use it with impunity, they have lost the power to reclaim it."

Prof Andrews adds: "If you understand the history of the word and how it's been used, it's not for white people to use, it's not for anybody else to use.

"If you look at the way that we use the word, which would be more acceptable - and I'm not saying I'm pro using it - it's about endearment, it's about family, it's about connections, it's about recognising the situation that we're in.

"So if you're not black you can't do that. You actually can't use the word in the way that we use it. It's not possible, because you're not in that space. So any other usage of it is completely wrong."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53749800

The thing I found most surprising in that article is that the BBC were defending the use of the full word in a news report about a racially aggravated attack as recently as 2020. In fact it was the very same month in which Mr Stevenson used it in the training session which led to his dismissal.

Trans identifying people can use the toilets associated with their sex.
They can also choose to use disabled toilets or unisex toilets / single stand alone toilets.

Someone with Tourette Syndrome has no such "choice" over their utterances.

Your comparison is nonsense.

@OtterlyAstounding
And clearly, the judge thought the dismissal was wrongful, which kind of disproves the point you're making that it's not considered acceptable?

The dismissal was found to be unfair because the employer failed to consider whether the matter could have been dealt with informally, through mediation or other action short of a disciplinary hearing, or whether a sanction short of dismissal would have been appropriate, and all this went against the employers own procedures. Also the employer had mischaracterised the claimant as not showing remorse when in fact he was extremely apologetic and said he felt terrible about the distress caused.

The judge definitely did not think that use of the word was acceptable. He said:

I also make a finding that by deliberately using the N word in full the claimant’s culpable conduct significantly contributed to his dismissal. I therefore reduce any compensatory award by 90% under section 123 (6) ERA 1996.

As a note, the judge uses the word twice. Once because in a legal situation it's necessary to be clear which word is at issue for the record, while the claimant's usage was unnecessary. And the second time was in a direct quote of a letter

It wasn't necessary at all. The judge in the Borg-Neal case managed to avoid using the word in full anywhere in his judgment, even when directly quoting. I'm amazed you're OK with it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e88740691aa3000da56dec/Carl_Borg-Neal__vsLloyds_Banking_Group_Plc.pdf

Most of these are terrible words and definitely closer than your earlier examples but no, I don't think any of them operate quite like the N word.

Some of them are commonly used in full, e.g. the R word seems to be quite popular in the US. I often hear the P word or the C word used quite casually. It's disgusting but it's not shocking in the same way as the N word.

There was a screenshot doing the rounds in the wake of BAFTA - it was Google's AI saying 'See more search results about n-s' only it used the full word. It was incredibly jarring to see and it occurred to me that it's the only time I've heard or read the full word throughout this clusterfuck (outside the usual contexts of black community usage and films about slavery or racism).

Other words you list are more complex, e.g. 'Gypsy'. From Friends, Families and Travellers:

Is it okay to say ‘Gypsy’?

It depends. ‘Gypsy’ is sometimes seen as offensive or as a racial slur. However, there are several Romani groups in Europe who have claimed this word and use it with pride. This includes many individuals within the UK who proudly use the word ‘Gypsy’ to describe themselves. It’s best to ask individuals how they like to be referred to and follow their lead.

https://www.gypsy-traveller.org/about-us/frequently-asked-questions/

Friends, Families and Travellers use the word liberally throughout their site and there is no suggestion that only Romanis are allowed to use it.

The only other word I can see there that has been claimed by the group it is aimed at is 'Dyke' and it is certainly true that a lot of lesbians who refer to themselves as dykes do not like non-lesbians calling them that but it's not an unsayable word. Every year there are dyke marches in cities around the world, how impractical would it be to organise and advertise if only lesbians were allowed to say or write the word? (and can you even imagine an N- March?)

I do not believe for a second that if JD had ticced any of those words on your list that people would still be discussing it two weeks later.

All very interesting, but no examples have been given yet as requested. I'm still curious to know which other slurs are considered "magical" or "fashionably taboo" besides the n-word.

I have encountered people who do that, yes – who start off pretending they're engaging in good faith but seem to relish say the word in full, and then end up revealing the fact that, actually, they're openly racist throughout the course of the conversation.

I'm not sure why that's so difficult to believe.

You know people who try to find excuses to say rude words? Rather like pre-schoolers saying "poop", or teenagers finding reasons to say "sex".

Did they tell you that is what they were doing?

The idea of magical language can apply to any word. The point is that it's devoid of context, and language actually doesn't work that way, unless you believe in magic. Our understanding of every word is determined by the context.

It's like that idiot in the US a few years ago who complained about the pictures of Welsh miners in a diner. Because they were in "blackface". Pretty much everyone thought he was clearly a moron, or maybe was trying to hurt the diner, because it is very obvious that it is not just having dark pigment on a person's face that is potentially offensive, regardless of how it came to be there. But his argument was essentially what some in the thread are saying - that it was triggering because of the historical facts around blackface performances, the context of being from another time, place, and having another cause is irelevant.

@TempestTost "Thinking that is an issue to worry about shows a very strange idea about other people's minds."

It is something I have personally encountered. It may not be hugely common but it does happen, so I think you're being very naive to think it doesn't.

I have never once seen the other words you mention written with symbols instead of letters.

The only other example I have seen is G-D.

WTA: Actually, not quite true, I have seen it done where it would be edited out by an algorithm, also the word s#x - but that's a bit different.

Yes, me too.

I don't think there are closet racists out there who are getting their jollies in from saying slur words in disingenuous contexts where they would otherwise be ok.

There are open racists who say them, or maybe say them in private. There are closet racists who don't say them for fear of getting in trouble. There are even racists who don't know they are racists who won't say them because they won't use racial slurs.

But people are not getting into conversations about linguistics, or joining the cast of The color Purple, in order to utter slurs.

Thinking that is an issue to worry about shows a very strange idea about other people's minds.

Neither I nor anyone else has suggested that it would never be upsetting or confronting.

I don't know why you would think anyone is saying that.

I actually think that any word could be upsetting or confronting if used in a particular way, but clearly some are much more targeted for that purpose.

@stickygotstuck Out of interest, let's break that incident down, as you think it's an example of a time when using the N word in full was appropriate...

In 2020, during a Prevent anti-radicalisation course:

"The attendees were told by the facilitator that it was a “safe space." - source.
"Although the course was about radicalisation, the claimant’s evidence on the first day of this hearing was that he raised the issue of racism, specifically around Jewish jokes, stereotypes and websites.
During the course of this session the claimant asked a question of the facilitator around when situations should be reported as racism, as sometimes it was unclear.
She asked him to give an example and the claimant relayed a situation he had been in in 1985 when a black person had referred to his then girlfriend, who was also black, using the N word.
In the course of relating this example the claimant used the N word in full." - source.

Hm. I'm not sure why 'safe space' means 'say the N word in full'. I feel as though, if we're talking about 'safety', then that would make it 'unsafe'. I'm also not sure why a course about anti-radicalisation is the appropriate time to raise issues of racism...where the first example Stevenson thought of was from 1985!!
Why on earth, on an unrelated course, would you dredge up something that happened ~30 years ago, and use the N word in full?
And not only that, but there was no need to use the full word, as the context and situation would've made it quite clear what he meant.

I don't think he should've been fired, with an unblemished 32 year record, over some major foot-in-mouth, offensive moment - I think people deserve a second chance, and it sounds as though the facilitator didn't do a good job controlling the session. But I equally don't think the use of the word was appropriate.

Anyway, that tangent aside...

"I find that an astonishing comment, and frankly insulting, if I was that way inclined."

So you think it's astonishing and insulting if someone doesn't assume the best of a person who goes out of their way to use a racial slur? Seriously? You don't think, given the racism that lingers in the world, that some cynicism or wariness isn't deserved and earned? And you seem to think that the responsibility is on black people to assume the best, rather than on white people and other races to just not use the word?

I think it's astonishing and insulting that someone would choose to use a racial slur when it's not necessary. And I think it's astonishing and insulting of you to say that the issue is with black people not assuming good intent when they hear a racial slur, rather than that white people (and other races) just not using the word in full unless necessary. It seems a little like victim blaming?

"I doubt the perspective of a black Brit would be exactly the same as that of a black US American"

Black British people on this thread are telling you their perspectives, and you're actively ignoring and denying them.

99% of this post is irrelevant to anything I've said on this thread, let alone the post you're quoting. I'm going to assume you're addressing the whole thread rather than my post because none of this relates to the points I made.

You quoted the first couple of sentences and then went on to say something close to what I'd already said in the rest of my post as if those sentences weren't there - while talking about "clear language", "hidden motives", US sensitivity" and "telling you what to think". That makes it obvious you skimmed and replied with what you were already planning to say rather than engaging with what I actually wrote.

Several posters have said they don’t know any other slurs that must not be named, which is exactly why this one gets fixated on and discussed more than others. That’s the only point I made. If you disagree with something that's easily visible in this thread, you haven't made that clear in any of your posts because you keep deflecting from my "clear language". I don't think that demonstrates 'good communication' or 'clear motives'.

If you're addressing the thread in general, then address the thread, not my post. The rest of what you’ve raised isn’t something I said, so I’m not going to discuss positions I haven’t taken. If you don't want to have a direct conversation and would rather gesture broadly at unrelated issues, I'll leave you to "think what you want".

Perhaps, but that's because it's one of the most 'magical' ones. And one of the most fashionably taboo ones

By the way, I'd love to know what other slurs posters consider "magical" and "fashionably taboo". I've only ever seen the n-word used as an example on this thread but clearly from this poster's comment and others', there must be more. If anyone can enlighten the thread - the way I did when posters said they couldn't think of any others at all - that would be helpful.

White people have been asked not to use that word - it’s not unreasonable that if they can help it that they don’t. At all.

Bit more nuanced for mixed race people who ‘pass’ but again not unreasonable to not use an offensive word if you can help it ( ie no Tourette’s). And as far as I can tell people of colour only use the word within close knit friendship groups or acquaintances so their heritage is well understood.

Also I include the p word here which I’ve had thrown at me a lot as a darker skinned southern European heritage but still doesn’t affect me anything like it would a southern Asian person.

it’s all about intent which is not what causes a Tourette’s vocal tic. In fact it’s almost the opposite of intent- saying the thing they least want to say.

@OtterlyAstounding , sorry I misunderstood the example. However, I believe that in the context of the man in the trial (the training session) it was totally appropriate to use the word. That's has been my point all along. Naming a word is the clearest way to refer to it. There's no clearer
way.

Well that's the thing. No one can know. But the fact that you would be insisting on unnecessarily using an offensive word in full doesn't bode well for your intentions.

I find that an astonishing comment, and frankly insulting, if I was that way inclined. Plus, as you yourself would admit, you cannot know. As I said, we're not going to agree.

Regarding sensitivity, I can't speak from personal experience, but I doubt the perspective of a black Brit would be exactly the same as that of a black US American. Because context. Besides the fact that it's used much less extensively in the UK.

I'll leave it now because I'm clearly failing at the business of clear communication.

Completely agree.

Thank you @RedToothBrush ( my son has Tourette’s with coprolalia.) his motor tics aren’t too bad and he’s simply smashing life despite this awful condition but it’s heartbreaking some days seeing what it puts him through. And we are lucky his is nowhere near as bad as many Tourette’s sufferers. Vile condition.