John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

Its a shame that so many don't seem to feel the same way.

I don't think anyone has a right to tell others how to feel about what they hear or read.

I didn't say oppress, I said used as a slur and yes I have seen it, both written amd spoken.

Usually as a generalisation and belittling white people.

But as I said are we going to use the same standard of someone being impacted negatively by the term?

Or does someone else have the right to tell people how they should feel about a slur being used?

It doesn't have that impact for me or anyone I know. As shown by the articles I linked to, the n word has a long history of being used to oppress blacks. I haven't seen YT being used to oppress whites. Do you have any examples of that?

But if we use the logic that is being used in this case that its not the intent but the impact (which I agree with) then if YT has the impact of a slur then it shouldn't be used.

I've used YT but not as a slur. On some forums it seems like a shorthand for white. It can be used disparagingly but often isn't. If the overwhelming usage on a particular forum or group was as a slur, I wouldn't use it. I haven't used it on MN but I haven't noticed it either.

I avoid using all those as slurs because they disparage someone based on their sex or race/national origin.

Thanks for your replies @OtterlyAstounding and @GenderlessVoid .

It is clarity that is paramount to me and I, like Otter, have often been left wondering what people mean when they don't quote the specific word. Admittedly, I find ambiguity in not necessarily obvious places.

Genderless says the use of such words 'normalizes their dehumanization' but I just don't see that is true in every single context. Such as Otterly's example, say.

Where we differ I guess is that I don't find any word particularly shocking when referred to it for information purposes (as opposed to call it to someone). A good example is the one you used of you discussing one such word with your husband.

I wonder what it is that makes them less shocking to me/more shocking to others. Surely it cannot just be a 'me' thing. There are not many chances to actually discuss this IRL and this thread was a small opportunity. It's not exactly the quest of my life, mind, but I do find it interesting.

It has been interesting to see some people come right out and say that they would lay hands on him.

Or that he should try that in "the hood" and they would "cure him" of his torrettes.

GenderlessVoid

I am curious as to which slurs you are OK with using.

Surely as they are a slur they should be actively avoided?

I have noticed that on MN

Gammon
Karen
KKKaren
and YT

seem to be ok to use.

That is a lie. No one has said that no one should have been offended.

You’re (deliberately I suspect) missing the point of my post. This one word which can never be typed or said aloud has a potency above all others. But some of the people who have complained about the terrible harm they suffered hearing it have urged others to say it and said it themselves without experiencing (we can assume unless they’re massive masochists) this terrible harm.

So is that about control? If you know someone is going to say it and/or you say it, then the word is effectively neutralised? There is no logic because the whole thing is manufactured outrage.

Anyway this whole conversation is moot because it’s clear from watching the SNL clip and black celebs being interviewed that left wing America has decided that Davidson is a massive racist and think it’s fine to mock him and wish physical violence upon him.

I know who the victim is in all this and it isn’t the people with riders in their dressing rooms and chauffeurs

Why are so many people here (let's just take the thread as an example) happy to type so many other slurs, but not that one? What is the difference, exactly? Why is that particular one It-That-Must-Not-Be-Named? All words should be able to be named.

I don't use most slurs that denigrate someone based on a characteristic they can't control

b###h
t##t
c##t

n####r
p#ki
w#g

f#g
b#nd#r
p##f
etc

It normalizes their dehumanization.

I've seen the n word used in the context of discussing US politics. I've used it in that context. Here are two fairly recent papers or articles using it

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/to-fight-for-civil-rights-lyndon-b-johnson-settled-for-the-middle-ground-180981482/

https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/pcharm/article/view/4342

If you don't want to download, the Carleton paper includes the infamous Lee Atwater description of the Southern Strategy quoted here

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

Just to clarify - are you likening me to the KKK?

Personally, I'd rather type 'the b word' than use it, but no one would know what I was talking about.

I'll also rarely use the n word in full if discussing issues like this one with my husband, as it's only the two of us so no one else will be bothered, when talking about the impact of hearing the word 'n'''r' - to say it in full, really brings home how shocking it is. But I don't see the need to use the n word in full in public discussions when everyone knows what we're talking about. Do you want to say it?

I also see many people say 'the p word' on Mumsnet (as a non-Brit I found that very confusing for a while), and 'the r word' or 'r''''d' when discussing disability. So that's not the only word people asterisk out or don't write. In old novels, writers used to dash out (I can't do it or it messes up the formatting) 'b'''y' or 'b''''d', and people still at times say 'G-d' if they're of certain religions.

I think it's clarity of communication that's important, so making sure everyone does know what you're talking about, as opposed to writing out every letter/saying the word.

These days, I think it tends to be that words that were the label for a demographic who have been wholly dehumanised in (relatively) recent history, are confronting to use, so should be done only when needed. As I said earlier, such words (and for me as a white woman, that does include 'bitch' when directed at a woman), which have no use but to remind the person they're directed at of their demographic's total lack of humanity in so many people's eyes, in recent history and the present day, are like a figurative slap in the face.

For me, it feels a little like unnecessarily rubbing salt in a wound.

Yes, they are just words.

They are also offensive to some, slurs to others. But still, just words.

What I'm getting at, and I thought it was blindingly obvious, is that all words should be treated the same.

Why are so many people here (let's just take the thread as an example) happy to type so many other slurs, but not that one? What is the difference, exactly? Why is that particular one It-That-Must-Not-Be-Named? All words should be able to be named.

For the record, I think you and several others are reading things into my words that are not there. I am simply asking a question about language, and only about language because nobody has been able to a answer it in a logical (to me) way (and not just in this thread, but it's being discussed here and now and I am interested in that specific question).

Your writing so measured and composed, but we all know:

"The Ku Klux Klan never dies. They just stop wearing sheets because sheets cost too much"

Thurgood Marshall

That was supposed to you @BackToLurk

That was so eloquent, thank you.
I am a woman, I am black and I have a disability. It has been sad but not surprising to see some of the cognitive dissonance here wrt race.

Intent hasn’t been lost.

Did JD intend any offence? No
Would hearing the word offend? Yes

Some people are arguing beyond “No offence was meant”. They’re arguing “it’s just a word, how can anyone be offended”. Which besides anything else seems to completely ignore a major feature of coprolalia. The involuntary words are obscene and/or offensive.

And once again, intent has been lost down the back of the sofa.

Would this all be still playing out if one of the other slurs Davidson inadvertently shouted out during the ceremony had been broadcast instead? And if the presenters hadn’t been American?

I very much doubt it.

And the lies just keep coming, thick and fast.

Are you only capable of reading one sentence in a post? Here is the rest of the relevant part (I have bolded a couple of short bits to help):

The 'response' is generally that organisations comply with the TRA and expunge any words from their policies that might imply that sex exists.

These things are clearly not unsayable. They are wrong and we will argue back, right up to the Supreme Court if we have to, not because what they say is hurtful but because policies based on their arguments destroy our rights. But they're perfectly free to carry on saying those things.
------

Whether a word is taboo to a Black Woman is for them and those in their community to decide.

Of course.

When you use the word 'taboo' in the above sentence, do you mean a word which is hurtful or a word which must never be said or written? My post was about the latter but I'm quite happy to say 'words which must never be said or written' if that would avoid confusion.

People refuse to support POC who are offended by the slur while supporting women who are offended by words, because they feel POC have too many rights and that they are threatening their own rights as white people.
They are the same people who indulge in MRA style whataboutery, talking about 'racism against white people' every time there's a discussion on racism.
They are the people who condemn EDI initiatives, despite the benefits they bring to women and the disabled people they've suddenly become so concerned about, because they believe they lead to POC having advantage over white people.
Just like the MRA and the TRA do with women, they minimise, belittle and deny any harms or disadvantage caused to POC because they feel their rights as white people are endangered by protections afforded to them.
Its the exact same motivations and behaviour, and just as pointless arguing with then as it is with the MRA and TRA.

I know.

The hypocrisy is spellbinding, especially when you contrast these responses with those of the posters who have managed to engage thoughtfully and in good faith.

It's an astounding rewriting of history, isn't it?

Convention. And plenty of people on these boards type "c*s" or have in the past. Point is we frequently debate whether these are 'just words' or whether they tell us anything about structural and/or accepted attitudes towards women, or whether we should move away from or discourage their use.

Look if you want to say the N word, just say it.

“‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” JKR

Just words, right?