John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

Language has meaning. It is about shared meaning and understanding.

Creating multiple meanings for the same word creates tribalism. It doesn't change that word being offensive to a lot of people.

It doesn't reclaim it. It just confuses the issue.

If we want to empower we are better moving forward and creating new futures whilst referencing the past with the language of the past.

If we want to understand how a word offended in the past and held power over others we don't achieve that by changing the meaning of that word. We run the risk of people not fully understanding how bad things were in the past.

We can create new words and new positive futures without doing this.

There are many unacceptable words that are not allowed in the classroom or workplace.

So yes in some circumstances we do get to "police" what others say and do.

All workers have the right to a safe environment, free from bullying, intimidation, and violence.

Compelled speach is never ok. You don’t get to police anyone.

Wouldn't it just be better to let the word fall into disuse?

It will never happen but its a thought.

I disagree that this is the case. Plenty of gay people still don't like it and resent it being used in this way.

If you think language only works when it stays fixed by your rules, you don’t understand language, you just want control.

I’m not sure about this in all circumstances, ‘queer’ for example, now has a different meaning. It used to be a slur, it was reclaimed and is now seen as a positive term.

As I posted, it will never happen.

But as you and others have posted, the use of the word isn't accepted as universal within the black community.

I personally am not going to gatekeep what word any group can or cannot use to describe themselves.

But if I were still in the classroom, I would be pulling up pupils for the use of the word as unaccpetable, in the same way that I did for any other word that can be used in a derogitory meaning, and yes this does include gammon, karen etc.

Wouldn't it just be better to let the word fall into disuse?

It will never happen but its a thought.

There are a lot of black people who would agree it is best to let it fall into disuse.

However it isn't for us to decide that. It is reclaimed because if they control the meaning the meaning cannot control them.

I haven't personally heard this word being used but there are some within the disabled community who have tried to reclaim the word crip or cripple. Crip pride. Crip community. Reclamation of words isn't unique to black people, but if you're not part of that community that is reclaiming those words and those meanings then you can't really dictate the motivation for it's use.

See also queer. A word historically used to denigrate homosexual or bisexual people. As a bisexual person I hate that word, it gives me a horrible visceral reaction, but it is being proudly used by people it would historically have been used to oppress.

I know a lot of black households who won't entertain the N word from within. I know Pakistani families who use the P word themselves. It isn't for us to dictate even if we resent it's existence because we understand the historical oppression behind it.

I have this position about 'reclamation' and attempts to change meanings not for any particular case but as a general rule.

The meaning and understanding of words rests on a social consensus and an agreed meaning as usage.

As soon as you start messing about with that, you lose that consensus and you get different groups saying different things and arguments breaking out all over the place. It creates more problems. It creates offence in its own right.

It doesn't achieve what it sets out to do as a result. You just end up with tribalism, people confused and people accused of things which they didn't remotely intend. It's really unhelpful.

This isn't about race. It's about clear communication. It's about a variety of situations.

It's because people don't understand how language works.

Only by come of the younger generation and a few of the older generation.
It is not accepted as a positive by all.
And is a major point of contest between LGB groups and trans groups.
The Q in LGBTQ+ used to mean questioning.

Also see the deletion of the word trans sexual for trans gender, many older trans people still class themselves as trans sexual.

Wouldn't it just be better to let the word fall into disuse?

It will never happen but its a thought.

I’m not sure about this in all circumstances, ‘queer’ for example, now has a different meaning. It used to be a slur, it was reclaimed and is now seen as a positive term.

I think 'reclamation' of words doesn't have the intended effect. It just muddies the waters and creates it's own issues.

I say this on a number of subjects.

Clear communication and clear definitions and meanings are always preferable.

You clearly haven’t read my posts if you truly believe any of what you have said to me here. I’m not going to engage with you whilst you speak the way you do, calling me names. Saying that it’s okay for those involved to feel upset isn’t me trying to ‘centre’ anyone. I have repeatedly defended John and called out the horrific disablism we are witnessing. However, I can also defend those who feel upset about the broadcast of a racial slur and the constant dismissal of their feelings about hearing that slur. I have also said that I don’t think John needed to apologise at all.

I have repeatedly said there is a big difference between intent and impact and that John had no intent. I have repeatedly said that the impact of this incident and the disablism is horrific. I have called out Mumsnet and comments. I equally have called out the BBC and BAFTA. But I have also defended those who have a right to feel hurt. It’s okay to feel for more than one person. It’s okay to be upset this this incident is being used as a racist baton on social media and that is not fair for black people to have to handle that. It isn’t fair that we tell Michael and Delroy that they have no right to be upset when they hear such a word during their time on stage. As I have said, over and over, both parties can be upset and that is okay. Both parties were treated badly by those who could have easily prevented this and I sympathise with all involved.

But you are so ready to be all shouty and call me names it is evident that you clearly haven’t read any of the ten or so posts I have added to this thread where I have said all of this, and that you can’t be bothered to do so, so therefore we have nothing further to discuss.

I have this position about 'reclamation' and attempts to change meanings not for any particular case but as a general rule.

The meaning and understanding of words rests on a social consensus and an agreed meaning as usage.

As soon as you start messing about with that, you lose that consensus and you get different groups saying different things and arguments breaking out all over the place. It creates more problems. It creates offence in its own right.

It doesn't achieve what it sets out to do as a result. You just end up with tribalism, people confused and people accused of things which they didn't remotely intend. It's really unhelpful.

This isn't about race. It's about clear communication. It's about a variety of situations.

It's because people don't understand how language works.

Personally, I don't think white people should be telling black people how they should or shouldn't use the N word, or implying that it's somehow their fault if the N word is used by white people, because they use it. That seems racist to me.