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.

So you are saying that certain people get to define what other people find offensive and the impact that it has on them?

I have seen YT spat out as a slur.

Or are you happy with the double standards that you are putting forward.

and yes this whole thing ia about "vocabulary policing.", what people can and can't say.

elgreco

"whitey" really.

You’ve shifted my point from “Is ‘yt’ a slur?”

to “Do people have the right to say they find something offensive?”

Those are two different questions and trying to collapse them into one won't work.

The key distinction you're missing is that personal offence is not the same as a slur. Anyone can find anything offensive but whether a word is a slur is determined by externally recognisable criteria, not by individual offence.

“I’ve seen it spat out as a slur” is not evidence. It's basically saying “I saw someone use it nastily, therefore the word itself is a slur.” Objectively, that’s not how linguistics works.

People can spit any word out nastily. Yes, people can use neutral words in hostile ways but that doesn’t change the category of the word.

The “double standards” accusation doesn’t hold because you're implying that if a white person finds “yt” offensive, it must mean the same as slurs used against marginalised groups.

Trying to accurately define a term or recognising that different words have different histories and impacts is objectively not a double standard.

The double standard is in not recognising this when it comes to race but championing it when it comes to biological sex.

Also, you're reframing my point as “controlling what people can say” when it was clearly about defining terms accurately. 'Bean soup theory' comes to mind.

These are not actually very similar at all, in a way they are almost the opposite.

No one is saying that racial slurs aren't real, people say them with meaning and intention at times. It's the meaning that is really offensive, not the combination of particular letters.

We also all know that sometimes we all know that the same word can be used in a differernt way. You can have an actor in a film , who is playing a role. A child repeats a word without understanding. Sometimes the same word can have different meanings in different places (UK vs US for example) or change meaning over time. There is a differernce between shouting at someone and a discussion in a linguistics paper.

Most adults are very capable of understanding these contextual elements and dealing with them, if that weren't the case, we wouldn't have things like films with racial slurs, because the audience wouldn't be able to look at it as part of the story being told.

When you have the magical language type of approach, none of this matters. A child repeating a word, or a person reading a 200 year old document or even one in another language, has the same effect because it is essentially an invocation.

No one is trying to change the meaning, but all words depend on their context in various ways.

With words like "mother" it's the same. Some places do use somewhat different languages for things like breastfeeding. There can be differernces even in what is thought of as rude vs polite talk. Sometimes small children will call their caregivers who aren't their mothers "mummy". Sometimes Mother can be used as a title for a role. Actors play mothers and everyone knows they have no actual children. No one struggles with the idea that context matters to meaning with this language.

Objections to people changing the word women aren't about any of these things. They aren't even about a natural change in language for one particular word where perhaps another word takes its place. It's about an attempt to suppress the expression of certain facts and meaning.

No one is trying to say racial slurs don't exist.

I am not even sure what you are trying to say here.

The point being made is that, in fact, many people are able to understand that the context of a use of a racial slur matters.

It is not the same response if you hear it:
Being shouted at you by a guy in a back ally with six scary friend,
Being used in a racist news article
Being discussed in an linguistics article about racial languague
Being repeated by a 2 year old
In a rap song
On a youtube video made by two young black guys who use it to refer to each other every 30 seconds

You might not like any of them at all, or you might be comfortable with some. But if you tell me that people don't understand and acknowledge that these are differernt I will know you are a liar. You have essentially said so yourself in this post - context matters. And some of them are very common, especially in certain communities.

So if you then try and tell me that people are incapable of seeing that context also matters with a person with Tourette's, or that the same people who understand these other instances cannot understand that, I don't really believe you.

I don't believe that you don't understand that context matters. I do't believe that you think that people are incapable of understanding context. I think you just don't want to extend that knowledge to a person who has a neurological disorder like this.

Who is asking for those words to be banned?

What always strikes me is that I see the two choices as either using a word, or not using it at all.

I don't think I have called anyone a bitch since I was a teenager. I have said it, or written it, from time to time where it wasn't being directed (by me) at someone, but with the same type of meaning (I wasn't talking about dogs.) I wouldn't use it as an adult in control of my thoughts and feelings because it's rude and inappropriate.

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. Because it's referring to the exact same word. It's the same as someone saying "the n-word." Well, we all know what word is meant, if we see that, it refers to the exact same word. I think the same is true with the concept of typing things like G-D. The symbols refer to the exact same concept and even the exact same letters.

All kinds of things can set off a trauma response, it doesn't have to be something that is even normally offensive.

Smell of a certain food, music, a certain kind of body type or facial hair, accent.

No Black woman is blinded by magical letters. The issue is the meaning attached to them - a meaning forged through slavery, racial hierarchy and centuries of dehumanisation. The effects of that history isn't just something Black people read about in history books. Black women, men and children still live with them almost every day and in almost every sphere of our lives. We know our history and we live our present, racially discriminated against from cradle to grave and everything in between. So how exactly does the N word suddenly become “magical thinking” when the conditions that gave it meaning have only selectively changed? Slavery may be history, but racism isn’t. The idea that the word now meets some neat linquistic rule and has floated free of that history is bullshit. Don't even bother with what about songs etc that is a hot debate which only the various Black communities get to have amongst themselves.

Please don't @ me again. I am done with the DARVO, dog whistling and strawmen that you and certain other posters think you are so smart in deploying. Nobody is fooled. If it looks like a duck...

Different century. Same playbook.

If I knew someone was triggered by a certain type of music, I wouldn't play it around them.

The point has always been what people find offensive.

And it seems that whatever point is made that the goal posts can always be shifted by those that want to move them or want to use them to be offended.

It is about intent
if it is not about intent, it is impact
If it is not about impact, it is about history.
If it is not about history, it is about oppression.
If its not about oppression, it is about power.

All nicely wrapped up in you can't tell a X person of y something else what to think but that doesn't seem to apply to everybody.

How about we stop changing the meaning of words and using words that cause people of any creed and colour pain, suffering ot trauma.

What this whole situation has shown me is that those that shout the loudest in claiming to be the tolerant and inclusive are infact some of the least tolerant of all when things dodn't fit in to their tidy little boxes.

@TempestTost

What always strikes me is that I see the two choices as either using a word, or not using it at all.

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.

Yes, that's exactly the way I see it.

You didn’t even respond to the post you quoted.

You: Yt is a slur.

Me: Yt isn't a slur and here’s why.

You: So you think certain people can choose what others can or can't say? That's double standards.

Me: 😳 I'm just saying Yt isn't a slur. Yes, people can say what they want and be offended/not offended by whatever. Just keep it consistent. That's the opposite of double standards.

You: <makes another post addressing the general thread>

...

I'm not sure what you're on about, although I find your post quite ironic. It seems like you're either repeating what I said in a different way and presenting it as your own point, or you're talking to a group about something else while quoting me.

Yes, the goalpost has indeed been shifting and I've been calling it out, including now. I don't know what you are doing.

My comment was specifically about ‘yt’ not being a slur because you claimed it is. That’s it. Your reply jumps to a much broader tangent which relates to the whole thread, but not to the thing I actually wrote. I don’t know what to tell you.

YT has been used as a slur.

You saying that it isn't just means that you have either not seen it, have a different opinion on it or are ignoring how some people use it.

Either way this is a you problem.

Yt is a slur if we say it is. That’s what you tell us, that we can’t tell you what is and isn’t a a slur. So if we say it is then it is. Your rules biting you back.Deal with it.

@TempestTost
I think you just don't want to extend that knowledge to a person who has a neurological disorder like this.

Considering that I've said he shouldn't be held accountable for saying it, I'm not sure why you would think that.

My issue was that you're trying to say that because there are contexts where it's not upsetting to hear the word, usually because a person is expecting it, it should never be upsetting or confronting to hear the word. Which isn't the case. If one expects it and already understands the context, one will react differently to a situation where one hears the word shouted out by a white person unexpectedly. And people have made it clear that often the body reacts before the mind can process the context. So unintended harm can be done.

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?

It can be an insult, yes. But it's not backed up by hundreds of years of slavery, oppression, and dehumanisation, so I'm really not sure why it would carry so much weight for you?

Thanks to some of the comments on this thread, I think I finally understand white fragility.

(As an aside, personally, I've always read 'yt' to be just an abbreviation of 'white', not 'whitey', as I most often see it written as 'yt people'.

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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 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.

@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.