John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

@stickygotstuck

"Err, 'necessary'? You've lost me. It was a tic. And I think PP have already provided ample clear explanations of what it involves."

I was responding to the paragraph in your comment where you were specifically talking about the case of the unfairly dismissed man. Not Davidson. That was quite clear.

"I am for clear communication. You cannot do that without clear language."

Great. So if you need to refer to the word, why not use the term 'the n word'? Then if someone says, 'what's that?' you can say the word in full. If your issue is clarity, then why would you have a problem with that?

"I strongly object to being told not only what words I can use but what I'm thinking when I use them. How can you presume to know?"

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. If your goal is clear communication, it's probably better to use a more neutral term so that you don't risk the implication that you're using the word in bad faith.

"And I insist, many PP seem to have adopted a US 'sensitivity' which doesn't fit here. I do think this is the key of the diametrally opposed perspectives."

A 'sensitivity'? Hmm. So you think Black British people who are offended or averse to the word (such as in the article I posted up-thread) are being too...what? Is it that you think that the UK has no racist history with the word? Because that's not true.

I do think there are appropriate contexts, yes. But I think the man in that case used it when it was entirely unnecessary to do so to communicate what he was trying to communicate.

Err, 'necessary'? You've lost me. It was a tic. And I think PP have already provided ample clear explanations of what it involves.

Yes, that's what the thread is about. But it still is the word people fixate on the most.

Perhaps, but that's because it's one of the most 'magical' ones. And one of the most fashionably taboo ones. Plus, what's the issue with the main word under discussion being discussed?

Look, we are not going to agree on this. I am for clear communication. You cannot do that without clear language. It's not possible to communicate effectively if you attribute hidden motives to people's use of language. Usually, motives become clear during a conversation and in the context (in the case of the Baftas it's blindingly obvious, except some people just don't want to see).

I strongly object to being told not only what words I can use but what I'm thinking when I use them. How can you presume to know?

And I insist, many PP seem to have adopted a US 'sensitivity' which doesn't fit here. I do think this is the key of the diametrally opposed perspectives.

Yes, that's what the thread is about. But it still is the word people fixate on the most. It's even the only one some people can think of, as shown by posters saying they don't know any others. It's the first or only word most people (online at least) reach for when they want to give an example of a slur, so it ends up being talked about more even when the topic isn't specifically about it.

Just read in an interview with Delroy Lindo that he and Michael B Jordan were the first presenters of the evening at the Baftas. I just find that heartbreaking that John Davidson felt forced to leave more or less as soon as the evening began, barely after having initially been made to feel so welcome. Probably his only night at an event like that and he didn't even get to see the crew collect their awards in person or Robert Aramayo win for playing him. I had been wondering how long he'd been there and how much of the show he'd managed to see as part of the audience - I think he ended up in a side room somewhere.

Well, take that up with racists who use it as an excuse to say it. There are absolutely some people who use, 'but I'm only saying it because of x' as an excuse to be edgy and use a racial slur they cannot normally get away with saying.

I do think there are appropriate contexts, yes. But I think the man in that case used it when it was entirely unnecessary to do so to communicate what he was trying to communicate.

It is not the one 'people fixate the most on'. It's literally the word the thread is about.

like a pp, I am also interested in why this word above all others must not be named.

This has already been shown on the thread to be incorrect. It only seems that way because it's the word people tend to fixate on the most.

There is absolutely a different historical context for the use of the n-word in the UK. As recently as the 1950’s, “n-word brown” was a perfectly legitimate term to describe a particular shade of brown, like navy blue is a particular shade of blue. It was in common use in the high street - fabric, clothes, shoe polish, makeup etc etc. Also for animals and it was also a popular name for dogs, like Blackie, Snowy, Spot, Smudge etc. (see Guy Gibson’s dog and the re-dubbing in the Dambusters film as Digger).

From conversations with my parents, it was exposure to the US troops stationed in the UK and their treatment of segregated servicemen that started to make the general population of England aware that it wasn’t always an affectionate, patronising and slightly derogatory term for black people. The battle of Bamber Bridge was up the road. They were shocked at seeing the white American visceral, abusive use of the word towards the black soldiers - soldiers who had come over here to defend our families and homes. It meant that the term gradually fell out of use in polite society, at least in Lancashire to start with, and conversely it was enthusiastically embraced by the racists.

like a pp, I am also interested in why this word above all others must not be named. It seems the more rare it becomes, the more the power it has to shock.

If you write the word in full...well, maybe you're just looking for an excuse to say it (something that is surprisingly common for some reason).

Honestly? I find that truly bizarre and utterly illogical.

And yes, I do want there to be some contexts where any word can be used. And in fact there are. Don't you? And if not, why?

I find it totally outrageous that a judge finds for the unfairly dismissed man but then reduces the award because of having uttered a word in absolutely the right context. Another logic fail.

Apologies, I can see where the confusion has arisen - I should have said, "where people were penalised for using the word in what they thought should have been an acceptable context". I don't know enough about the incidents mentioned to have an opinion on whether they were reasonable to think that or not.

I'm certain, however, that there are occasions where people have been fired for saying different slurs, so I don't think that's isolated to the n word. And clearly, the judge thought the dismissal was wrongful, which kind of disproves the point you're making that it's not considered acceptable?

Although I'm still not sure why it's relevant.

My post was in response to you saying:

My other issue was that you appeared to be using two isolated incidents where people were penalised for using the word in what should have been an acceptable context ...

My point was that there is no acceptable context.

Clear now?

Yes, I read your post, and I'm confused as to what your point is.

To be clear, I didn't not say, nor imply, that you wished to use the word. I asked good faith questions about why you think 'acceptable context' is relevant. Why is it an issue that the usage is not acceptable in any context? Do you think there should be acceptable contexts?

I repeat:

You said that... "The N word is not 'just a censored word', it's a word which must be censored. It's unsayable in a way which no other word is, that I can think of."

What point are you trying to make here?

Um, not saying that I agree 'there is no acceptable context', but is this really an issue? Do you want there to be an acceptable context?

Oh come on, my post was not that long! And I know you read the last paragraph because you quoted from it.

It's increasingly difficult to take some posters here in good faith.

Hmm interesting.

Other slurs (based on race or ethnicity) which "must be censored" like the n‑word: the k‑word for Jewish people, the c‑word for East Asians, the p‑word for South Asians, the g‑word for Romani people, the w‑word used against Eastern Europeans.

Other slurs about sexuality which "must be censored": the f‑slur for gay men, the d‑slur for lesbians.

Other slurs about disability which "must be censored": the r‑slur, the m‑slur used against people with intellectual disabilities.

Slurs target a protected or marginalised group, have a history of being used to justify discrimination or violence, and carry emotional and social harm even when not “intended” that way.

That’s why the idea that the n-word “is unsayable in a way which no other word is, that I can think of" is simply untrue (well except you did caveat with 'that I can think of' but still. It doesn't take a lot of thinking or even googling to see that there are quite a lot). The n‑word is one of the most severe due to history, but it’s part of a whole class of taboo identity‑based slurs.

@PencilsInSpace "They are relevant because they show that there is no acceptable context in which to use the word, at all, ever (unless you are black)."

Um, not saying that I agree 'there is no acceptable context', but is this really an issue? Do you want there to be an acceptable context? Also, obviously there are some contexts in which there is no malice intended, or contexts in which no harm is done. But generally speaking, I don't really see the need for people to say the word in full?

With any racial slur, I would likely imply it first, and only say it in full if the person I'm speaking to doesn't know what I'm referring too. It's the same with referring to swearing in company where it would be inappropriate - I'd say, 'they said the c word' rather than saying, 'they said cunt'.

Besides, this is one workplace incidence. People say the word all the time without consequences. (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.)

"The N word is not 'just a censored word', it's a word which must be censored. It's unsayable in a way which no other word is, that I can think of."

I'm not sure of your point?

Let me give an example. I have twice been called a "bigot" to my face. The first time, it was a huge shock. I've never seen myself as a bigot! My instinctive response was to be very angry; then I removed myself physically from the confrontation, before I could return the insult with 15%, or perhaps much more, interest. Thinking back on what happened, it was extremely tempting to dismiss the person as an irredeemable self righteous prick. But is she? Probably not; she is just someone with a very different perspective, and I think she genuinely does think I'm a bigot, because I don't accept queer theory and I don't believe in gender identity as a valid replacement for sex.

So why is she not an irredeemable self righteous prick? First, I don't think she's irredeemable. She has good qualities; she's defensive, but she is trying to defend real vulnerable people who matter to her; her life experience is very different to mine, and much shorter. Did she behave like a self righteous prick on that occasion? In my opinion, yes. But I'm not perfect either, so perhaps I'd better not judge her entirely on her worst behaviour, in case other people do the same to me.

She felt that I was being abusive by not pretending my son is my daughter. I don't think that's abuse. She screamed "bigot" at me. That is an example of someone assuming the very worst. We have not been able to reach an understanding of each other's worldview. We're too far apart. I'm starting to ramble, so I'll leave it at that.

@OtterlyAstounding
My other issue was that you appeared to be using two isolated incidents where people were penalised for using the word in what should have been an acceptable context, as some kind of defence? Why were those two incidents even relevant?

They are relevant because they show that there is no acceptable context in which to use the word, at all, ever (unless you are black). Regardless of context, if a white person uses it, it will always be treated as 'just looking for an excuse to fling the word about.' That exact accusation has been made towards JD by numerous accounts.

I found another case very similar to the one I posted upthread - another man with a decades-long clean employment record who was dismissed for using the word in an example in a training session that he had been told was a 'safe space'. Like the other guy, he apologised immediately. Like the other guy, he won an unfair dismissal claim, however his award was reduced by 90% because he said the word and it was not by accident. This was considered to be contributory fault on his part.

WARNING: This judgment contains the word written in full in a couple of places. Make of that what you will - I think it makes Judge Noons a massive hypocrite.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60d058dae90e0743a8ed3758/Mr_I_Stevenson_-v-London_Borough_of_Redbridge-3202574_2020-_Reasons.pdf

To be very clear - I am not campaigning to be allowed to use the word. I have no desire to use any racial slurs. But to pretend this word operates no differently from other words, like 'bloody' or 'fuck' is just not credible. It's true that some people choose to censor those words with asterisks and they are then just censored words. The N word is not 'just a censored word', it's a word which must be censored. It's unsayable in a way which no other word is, that I can think of.

It is common for those being abused to assume the very worst of those they perceive as abusing them.

I'm curious as to what you mean by this? And how it relates to the topic at hand?

And yes, I agree that for someone who doesn't understand the cultural context, they would definitely be taken aback by the reaction. Although I do think everyone who is native to the English-speaking world does understand the extreme offensive nature of the n word.

I think there are differences of perception between those on the receiving end of abuse and those dishing it out, and for that matter those observing. It is common for those being abused to assume the very worst of those they perceive as abusing them. This is in all contexts, and it partly explains the power of words used to abuse. If someone ignorantly uses a word, not understanding its cultural context to the recipient, they can be very surprised and shocked at the backlash.

It seems as though according to YouGov in 2014, 22% of people in Britain had heard the n word used in an offensive manner in the past five years, compared to 51% of Americans. So yes, it's definitely used less often in Britain.

But the context of the word is not particularly different - as the article I linked illustrates, it doesn't have a different meaning in Britain than in the US, and it doesn't spring from a different source.

And while Britain may not have used many black slaves domestically, it certainly traded in them, and owned and made use of them in the colonies. So while the usage of the word isn't as widespread, there is still the same contextual history of enslavement.

I agree that intent is important. But I also think that there is a strong element of in-group vs out-group use, as the article I linked touches on.

In my experience, many decades of it, overt racism through the use of unacceptable language in England has mostly been directed at people assumed to be from Pakistan, with also dishonourable examples of racism towards travellers, people of african or afro-caribbean descent, jews, arabs, welsh, irish, chinese, polish, italian, german, french and anglo-saxon people, I hope no-one is too offended at being left out. The history of slavery has rarely been referenced in the insults deliberately directed at people, either overtly or by implication. This is because slavery never took hold within Britain and Ireland to anywhere near the extent it did in the US.

So the n-word, used in a hurtful way, is something I have very rarely heard. It was already taboo in my circles by the '70s. In recent years, when I have heard it spoken, it has very nearly always been by black people.

There is a facet of language use which has long fascinated me. When a word or phrase is replaced by another, the new approved word or phrase often takes on the associations of the old word. So "special needs" rapidly started to be used in a sneering, mocking way after it was introduced. People who want to be abusive will find language to use; it is not just the words themselves that have power, it is the intent behind them. Another example is "queer", one of the most offensive words in my youth, now "reclaimed" by some and worn as a badge of pride and community – but it is still immensely hurtful to some of those abused by its vicious or even thoughtless use. Wounds do not always heal completely.

@stickygotstuck If you are talking about a word you are not 'flinging' it anywhere. You are referring to it to say something about it.

This is not always the case. Let's say that you share on social media that John Davidson used the word at the BAFTAs. If you write the word in full...well, maybe you're just looking for an excuse to say it (something that is surprisingly common for some reason). You may be posting in bad faith.
Censoring the word makes it clear that while you want to discuss the word, you're not just looking for a reason to be edgy and offensive, and say a racial slur under cover of, 'I'm just talking about it!'

Also, regarding the historical context of the word, I have the feeling we are conflating the US context and the UK context. Which are really not the same.

What do you think the differences are in context? This is an interesting BBC article on the use of the word in Britain, and elsewhere. Personally I think that in the western world at least, the context is pretty consistent.

People censor f*k or bl*dy too. It's just a censored word - it shouldn't bother people that some do that, although the first seems to cause quite a strong reaction on mumsnet if someone does. Perhaps that's why I haven't seen it done in a while.

@OtterlyAstounding
I think writing it that way makes it clear that the person using it is actively attempting to not be offensive, and isn't just looking for an excuse to fling the word about.

See, I struggle to understand this reasoning. If you are talking about a word you are not 'flinging' it anywhere. You are referring to it to say something about it. I honestly see no difference between writing the whole word and a truncated version.

Also, regarding the historical context of the word, I have the feeling we are conflating the US context and the UK context. Which are really not the same.

@TempestTost
What I find very strange is the idea that I would write it as "b###c" and somehow that would render it less shocking or offensive than if I just wrote it.

I think writing it that way makes it clear that the person using it is actively attempting to not be offensive, and isn't just looking for an excuse to fling the word about. So no, it's not necessary if you're talking with people who understand your meaning and intent and won't be offended, but it can make good faith conversation easier in public discourse.