John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

[slet]

It’s interesting how this is being discussed atm. I see Ash Sarkar has framed it as an example of competing rights between disabled people and victims of racism, forgetting about intersectionality. But there is a struggle from those on the extreme left to see how women’s rights are compromised by ceding to TRAs.

not expressing myself very well but thought it had some interesting parallels with the sex and gender debate.

I have made it excruciatingly clear that I know he is not racist. You're being deliberately nasty to keep saying I think he is, when I have explicitly said, many times, in capslock and out, that I know he is not racist and he can't help his involuntary tics.

What have I said on this thread that implies he is racist?

I'll screenshot you next time so you don't need to backpedal as hard and fast as you are. Have a good night now, everyone.

I don't think anyone with Tourettes as bad as John's will be choosing to appear on the BBC for a long time. Trust is broken.

ProudOliveHiker

The gentleman in charge of bafta has resigned.

Are you referring to Jonte Richardson who is a BAFTA judge?

It’s like you and the other unhinged posters on the other thread are so annoyed that the two actors aren’t being front and centred over a white man. I understand how horrible it must’ve been to hear that offensive slur, I haven’t been living on the moon, I realise it’s an extremely offensive word to say to black people by white people. Noted. The fact that it was an involuntary tic meant with no malice (which hopefully all involved will have educated themselves on Tourette’s and Coprolalia) is also noted. They can co-exist, it’s not a race to the bottom. Both views are valid.

I can also see the horrific treatment and ignorance that’s been meted out to a man with a debilitating disability, which is still going. Comments on social media are horrific. The performative outrage/offence seeking is starting to wear thin though. The DEMANDS for an apology for something he had no control over, impact over intent or not. Pound of flesh seeking.

The issue is with Bafta and the BBC. If you’re still bothered that I appear ‘dismissive’ then I don’t really care to be honest. People are clutching at straws to shout racism as it is. I do think the man that’s going to come out worse in all of this is John Davidson.

There are different reasons people try to reclaim words used against them. Plenty of Black people hate the word and don’t agree with its use at all. Black people aren’t unique in this - most marginalised groups debate reclaiming slurs.
Some gay men use “queer” or even the f word jokingly with each other. Those words carry a history and weight rooted in the gay experience. That doesn’t give straight people a pass to use them the same way. The upset isn’t about being snowflakes. Wealth or fame don’t shield anyone from the impact of a slur like the N word. It’s about who wielded the slur as a weapon and the weight of the history that still sits behind it.

The N word is tied to slavery, subjugation, rape, murder, torture, forced experimentation and generations of structural injustice. It marked Black people as disposable - as sub-human livestock, akin to cattle. It justified violence. That history doesn’t disappear because a few decades have passed. Like many marginalised groups structures left behind are still doing harm.

For JD, it may be an involuntary tic, and he does not deserve to be crucified for that. But for many Black people, it caused harm. It triggered a visceral response - straight to the limbic system - because of what it has historically meant.
There’s a lot of talk about making space for JD and what he is going through, and about “educating yourself about the marginalised Tourette’s community.” It isn’t a competition. If you want people to understand the realities of Tourette’s, you also have to be prepared to understand the realities of a slur with an undisputed link to racial harm for the other marginalised group in the room - Black people.

Making space for the impact on the Black community does not have to condemn JD, nor does it have to minimise what he is going through. We are not your enemy. But reading these threads, many of you are treating us like we are.

So nothing, then. As I thought.

As I said before, the lack of nuance on this thread for people on both sides of the issue is disappointing.

No, Davidson isn't racist and can't help it, but black people should not be expected to not be upset over the N word being shouted while two black presenters are on stage. An incident which was then broadcast internationally. And I think it's understandable for people to be quietly upset or distressed by tics, especially if they're not used to them.

Also, while Davidson didn't mean it it or intend it that way, I can understand how it still feels like a reminder that, no matter how rich or famous black people are, at the end of the day all people see are a couple of n---rs. Especially given the reaction from many people who ARE racist.

It's an issue without blame (except towards the BBC) but with understandable hurt on both sides.

Ultimately, the BBC made a huge misstep here, which feels a little like throwing everyone under the bus for publicity.

I think this sums up how it's coming across to me.

I think however it was handled or however much he apologised, we'd still be in this position tbh.

I think it could have been handled better. I think the BBC could have thought about placement of mics and done a better job of editing.

But I still suspect we'd still be in this position one way or another tbh.

Ahhh, culturally created. How about we ban the N word completely then? That way nobody would have to be exposed to it. I don't think I've heard anyone in recent years use the N word outside of African American rap music.

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.

Cease misrepresenting now - this is not what I said. This is not my conclusion. You are just desperate to have the final word.

You can deny the reality all you want, but you and others on this thread know very well how much you've backpedalled. Don't fall off that bike you're on as you're in such a hurry.

I'm not the one misrepresenting things here.

But go ahead, have your final word.

I know, as I wrote that I thought it but it shouldn’t be that way, their poor handling of the situation is going to set back feelings towards disabilities, specifically Tourette’s, when we have come so far. It’s so disappointing. I feel very sorry for anyone who has coprolalia and is now probably even more stressed having read the sort of comments we have seen on here. And poor John. The only thing we ca hope for is that some people will choose to become educated as a result and be a bit more understanding. Here’s hoping I Swear has a large audience.

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.

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.

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 haven’t disagreed with anything you’ve said or said that both don’t deserve recognition or acknowledgement of upset at the word so I don’t know why you honed in on my post pulling me up for being ‘dismissive’. I’ve never said the actors don’t have the right to feel upset. I wasn’t actually referring to you as unhinged but I can see how it came across that way.

I think ‘reclamation’ of words doesn’t have the intended effect. It just muddies the waters and creates its own issues.
So you think you get to decide what marginalised communities can or can’t reclaim?

I say this across a number of subjects.
Across a number of subjects you position yourself as the gatekeeper of what oppressed groups are allowed to do with language used against them. Much like you tried to do with my first post on this thread?

You’re free to dislike reclamation. But you don’t get to dictate how a community handles a slur that was weaponised against them.

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.

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.

Ah, I didn’t know about this. I have friends who use it to describe themselves so I thought it was widely accepted, I didn’t realise it was still contentious.

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