John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

I don’t think about you at all.

That was Shakespeare, just to be clear.

I'm so sorry About how you feel, and that your tics were set off. I hope that you'll be able to settle back down and re-regulate soon. Ignore that poster, he's just trying to be 'edgy' and cruel, and cause trouble, and has absolutely no clue what he's talking about.

At this point, engaging is probably just getting him off, so to speak. He just wants to upset people.

You “used to like it”?

right well Im out. Enjoy your wallowing.

I haven't read Meditations in many years but I used to like it. What you're suggesting works for some things but I've never found it applicable to involuntary physiological responses. I also think it can lead to greater harm for society when some activities are excused or minimized.

Why don't you answer @Anthophile 's question or respond to @BackToLurk's point? Maybe that would help me understand what you're saying.

It would also help if you answered my question

are you suggesting that John Davison adopt Stoicism to help him with his Tourette's ?

Oh, good! You're back to tell us all how wrong we are. Excuse me, just popping out again.

I suggest you check who the poster is before responding.

You’re making stretch on top of stretch. I’m not your enemy. You’ve clearly misunderstood a huge amount here.

if say go read Meditations but you’ve clearly told me how familiar you are with ancient philosophy. So you do understand this position. Right?

No. because again you’ve missed the point.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"

it’s not on me to make someone feel
hurt or not.

it’s on them to choose to be hurt. Or not.

this is a very clear, fundamental
point. I’m sorry you’ve not been exposed to this before.

you’re in control. Nobody else.

Where did I ask for your help? I haven't asked for anyone's help here. I certainly wouldn't want yours since you seem to have no understanding at all of either Tourette's or trauma responses.

BTW, are you suggesting that John Davison adopt Stoicism to help him with his Tourette's or is it just mine you're worried about?

You could apologise for the hurt you've clearly caused though. That's not the fault of Marcus Aurelius. That's down to you.

I really can’t help you. Only one person can. I suggest you look to the things in your own control.

`Wow! I was so looking forward to you mansplaining stoicism to me. Why do you assume I'm not familiar with it?

Do you understand Tourette's and trauma responses? They're involuntary. I can't reason my way out of them.

I’m sorry I’m not here to explain the basics of one of the fundamental pillars of philosophy to you.

in case it’s not abundantly clear, some schools of thought DO think you have control.

you don’t have to do much more than Google the quote. Broaden your horizons. And don’t get angry with me. It’s not my quote. Aurelius died a long, long time ago.

you seem very very keen to be angry and upset. You’re throwing all sorts of accusations. Entirely baseless ones. I’m not your enemy.

this world view

isn't clear to me in the above. The view that CSA is harmful even if the the child has no immediate serious bodily harm and survives? I'm aware that many people don't think CSA is harmful.

Or do you mean that many believe that women should ignore their discomfort with men in SSS, ignore voyeurs, ignore exhibitionists, etc because their discomfort isn't real harm? I know that many people think that too. Or that my Tourette's/PTSD is fake and I'm doing it all for attention or to hurt others in some way? I know that as well.

Or do you mean some other world view?

Oh no the reason is that I got my account banned for three days for pointing out that the fundamental tents of Stoicism do not support this world view. I could say it’s a philosophy followed my millions, not least the most powerful person on the planet for 500 years, but it seems that would upset people. So I wont. But. There are other perspectives. I’d very much love to go into detail about what is in your control and what is not. But I’m here to change the conversation about UK gender / Trans conversations and I occasionally get side tracked into other chats. I’m sure I’m right, I’d very much like to debate it, I’d be very happy to change my mind post discussion - but it seems some people don’t like debate.

and losing my account permanently would disadvantage my daughter and the large local fight I’m doing.

Thank you.

I also want to emphasize that it was used for years (probably centuries) to minimize CSA: "Oh he's just a kiddy fiddler/diddler, no real harm. We don't want to ruin a good man over that." It wasn't just a few bad cops who looked the other way, it was a lot of people in society who excused the harm to children as just a minor inconvenience for the child but punishing the offender would be a grievous injury to the perpetrator and his family. (At the same time as saying it was no big deal, the girl was now forever a worthless slag who deserved it.) And, since it's usually a fetish, it often escalated to more. But we have to protect the man bc reasons.

As you point out, now some use it to say that women who don't want to share intimate spaces with men should just get over it.

There's a very long history of minimizing the harm to women and telling us to buck up and get over it for the common good.

edit: typo

I don’t think I will.

I think there is a larger question, among all this trauma-response talk, about how we've been framing language over the last few decades, and particularly the last decade.

I've often thought in recent years that we are creating a way of thinking about words and certain kinds of actions that gives some of them an almost magical-power significance.

That's not something that is particularly inherent to them, it's learned.

As an example, an academic who lives near me wrong some kind of article a few years ago about the use of blackface, the conclusion of which was that it's significance (and even definition) depends on the context - something that seems inarguable on the face of it. He was however vilified for this by a number of organisation - no shock there - taking the view that somehow this is an objective act where "harm" was always present. This is the view that has idiots claiming that things like photos of Welsh miners in public spaces are triggering, or words that sound like other words, even if there is no real connection, cause harm.

It is possible to have words that are understood as offensive in various ways, or rude, without building them up into something so extreme. It almost seems like the creation of a kind of honour society where we have to navigate language and forms of address in a complex way to avoid impinging anyone's honour and creating a serious incident unintentionally.

No, I'm interested in your answer (in your own words) to understand what you exactly meant by that quote in response to another person relaying their experience of PTSD and Tourette's, because I don't want to assume you are being deliberately dismissive and/or provocative.

Could you also respond to @BackToLurk 's point about your Marcus Aurelius quote? It seems more relevant to the theme of the board (feminism).

What do you think the Stoics might have meant by it?

@SingleSexSpacesInSchools

"Choose not to be harmed, and you won’t feel harmed. Don’t feel harmed, and you haven’t been.
Marcus Aurelius."

What do you mean by this, especially given that you are replying to another person recounting their experience of PTSD and Tourette's? Surely you don't mean to say the fault or responsibility lies with those who have been harmed because they chose to be or felt harmed?

If you indeed meant that harm is a choice, surely you must also see that those dimissing the necessity of single-sex spaces in schools may turn your argument against you. They could claim that the presence of male students with a particular gender identity in female spaces does not have to be disallowed despite female students' mental distress (including trauma responses) and erosion of their dignity, because such harm is subjective and they should just get over it.

Choose not to be harmed, and you won’t feel harmed. Don’t feel harmed, and you haven’t been.

This sounds like my perps: "I'm not going to hurt you, I just want to put my willy in your mouth." "I'm just playing with your fanny, no harm."

"Why are you choosing to be upset about things that haven't really hurt you?" "It's your fault for being upset." Both my perps and those who covered for them (of which there were many) said essentially the same thing about my abuse. Now you're saying it about my involuntary reaction to that abuse.

How is the above not blaming the victims of abuse? How is it any different than what groomers say?

I've had many tics for several hours in response to the above post. Is it important enough for you to care about now or still not important enough to care about because my Tourette's was set off by my trauma response?

Is mocking a trauma response ok? How is that different than mocking Tourette's?

I guess this ties it into the OP: thought it had some interesting parallels with the sex and gender debate."

Sorry if this is incoherent. The above upsets me.

I'm not in favour of any comedians taking the piss out of Davidson for a medical condition he can't control and that makes his daily life extremely difficult.

Comedy can be used to interrogate and discuss difficult social issues but this is not doing that.