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.

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.

Words - are just words. Always.

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

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

Ah, you've ditched the 'give me your reasons, this is how we arrive at a shared way of thinking' pose to go back to the original 'this is HILARIOUS!!' approach. How surprising! How impressively daring you are.

Hard disagree.

Agreed, especially as the LGB community has been lumped with the TQIA+ community and it has become a catch all.

It feels like a branding. It is not a nice word. And if you are part of the LGB community and you object it's use you're ostracised for not wanting to be part of a homogenised group and relinquishing recognition of oppression.

I think that might be better, along with misogynistic slurs like 'bitch' that get used positively. But ultimately the N word is none of my business. I don't say it, and I don't tell black people whether or not they should say it. A bit like how men shouldn't say 'bitch' or tell women whether or not to use it.

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.

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.

I don’t consider them unacceptable and the fact you think it’s just an unassailable fact that some words are verboten says everything about you

words

are

just

words

It’s not about “reclamation” of the word. It’s about pointing out that the context of the word is relevant.

The only reason Jamie Foxx is saying “he meant that shit” is because of Foxx’s own ignorance of coprolalia. Well, Jamie, explain how he “meant that shit” and all the rappers and comedians who use it regularly don’t “mean that shit”.

Language changes, it always does. You just want control over that change.

What give you the right to decide how language changes over the people who were harmed by that language?

I don't feel like responding in good faith to someone who appears to be here purely to engage in racist trolling. That's all I have to say to you.

It’s been 24 hours and you’ve not told me one single racist thing I’ve said.

because

I’m not racist.

Two dismissive sentences among paragraphs and paragraphs of telling others they’re performative and beating them over the head with rhetoric around Tourette’s we’ve now heard ten thousand times. A well balanced view, cheers 👍

But not all language change is good.
We all know words that started off being nice and are now used as slurs or to give offence.

Look at how scope had to change its name.

I absolutely meant to match your energy so if you consider it rude, you might need to check your tone. And you may disagree but I am definitely not ‘wrong’ about my own views so respectfully, get over yourself.

Like I say I disagree that I want to control language.

I think we need shared understandings. Certain words changing means we lose an understanding as well as that meaning. They are about consensuses.

Words mean things. They provide definitions. They are shared experiences in some cases. If you lack the ability to describe something you lack the ability to share what that means. You destroy consensus.

We can create new definitions with new words and have complete control over them without having constant arguments or misunderstandings. We then persuade others of their worth and build consensus that way.

It's much healthier and has less pitfuls.

I'm not at all angry. Bit bored if anything. Fortunately I have biscuits, and other more interesting posts to read. 😃

You have just been chatting shit about skin colour shades. That's as racist as hell.

It's disappointing to see no other white commenters call that poster out. I don't expect people to engage in an ongoing fashion, because what's the point, but to just let it stand entirely unchallenged makes it seem acceptable/endorsed. It makes a thread feel weirdly racially hostile to me, fwiw.