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.

Let me give an example. I have twice been called a "bigot" to my face. The first time, it was a huge shock. I've never seen myself as a bigot! My instinctive response was to be very angry; then I removed myself physically from the confrontation, before I could return the insult with 15%, or perhaps much more, interest. Thinking back on what happened, it was extremely tempting to dismiss the person as an irredeemable self righteous prick. But is she? Probably not; she is just someone with a very different perspective, and I think she genuinely does think I'm a bigot, because I don't accept queer theory and I don't believe in gender identity as a valid replacement for sex.

So why is she not an irredeemable self righteous prick? First, I don't think she's irredeemable. She has good qualities; she's defensive, but she is trying to defend real vulnerable people who matter to her; her life experience is very different to mine, and much shorter. Did she behave like a self righteous prick on that occasion? In my opinion, yes. But I'm not perfect either, so perhaps I'd better not judge her entirely on her worst behaviour, in case other people do the same to me.

She felt that I was being abusive by not pretending my son is my daughter. I don't think that's abuse. She screamed "bigot" at me. That is an example of someone assuming the very worst. We have not been able to reach an understanding of each other's worldview. We're too far apart. I'm starting to ramble, so I'll leave it at that.

@PencilsInSpace "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)."

Um, not saying that I agree 'there is no acceptable context', but is this really an issue? Do you want there to be an acceptable context? Also, obviously there are some contexts in which there is no malice intended, or contexts in which no harm is done. But generally speaking, I don't really see the need for people to say the word in full?

With any racial slur, I would likely imply it first, and only say it in full if the person I'm speaking to doesn't know what I'm referring too. It's the same with referring to swearing in company where it would be inappropriate - I'd say, 'they said the c word' rather than saying, 'they said cunt'.

Besides, this is one workplace incidence. People say the word all the time without consequences. (As a note, the judge uses the word twice. Once because in a legal situation it's necessary to be clear which word is at issue for the record, while the claimant's usage was unnecessary. And the second time was in a direct quote of a letter.)

"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."

I'm not sure of your point?

Hmm interesting.

Other slurs (based on race or ethnicity) which "must be censored" like the n‑word: the k‑word for Jewish people, the c‑word for East Asians, the p‑word for South Asians, the g‑word for Romani people, the w‑word used against Eastern Europeans.

Other slurs about sexuality which "must be censored": the f‑slur for gay men, the d‑slur for lesbians.

Other slurs about disability which "must be censored": the r‑slur, the m‑slur used against people with intellectual disabilities.

Slurs target a protected or marginalised group, have a history of being used to justify discrimination or violence, and carry emotional and social harm even when not “intended” that way.

That’s why the idea that the n-word “is unsayable in a way which no other word is, that I can think of" is simply untrue (well except you did caveat with 'that I can think of' but still. It doesn't take a lot of thinking or even googling to see that there are quite a lot). The n‑word is one of the most severe due to history, but it’s part of a whole class of taboo identity‑based slurs.

Um, not saying that I agree 'there is no acceptable context', but is this really an issue? Do you want there to be an acceptable context?

Oh come on, my post was not that long! And I know you read the last paragraph because you quoted from it.

It's increasingly difficult to take some posters here in good faith.

Yes, I read your post, and I'm confused as to what your point is.

To be clear, I didn't not say, nor imply, that you wished to use the word. I asked good faith questions about why you think 'acceptable context' is relevant. Why is it an issue that the usage is not acceptable in any context? Do you think there should be acceptable contexts?

I repeat:

You said that... "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."

What point are you trying to make here?

My post was in response to you saying:

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 ...

My point was that there is no acceptable context.

Clear now?

Apologies, I can see where the confusion has arisen - I should have said, "where people were penalised for using the word in what they thought should have been an acceptable context". I don't know enough about the incidents mentioned to have an opinion on whether they were reasonable to think that or not.

I'm certain, however, that there are occasions where people have been fired for saying different slurs, so I don't think that's isolated to the n word. And clearly, the judge thought the dismissal was wrongful, which kind of disproves the point you're making that it's not considered acceptable?

Although I'm still not sure why it's relevant.

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).

Honestly? I find that truly bizarre and utterly illogical.

And yes, I do want there to be some contexts where any word can be used. And in fact there are. Don't you? And if not, why?

I find it totally outrageous that a judge finds for the unfairly dismissed man but then reduces the award because of having uttered a word in absolutely the right context. Another logic fail.

There is absolutely a different historical context for the use of the n-word in the UK. As recently as the 1950’s, “n-word brown” was a perfectly legitimate term to describe a particular shade of brown, like navy blue is a particular shade of blue. It was in common use in the high street - fabric, clothes, shoe polish, makeup etc etc. Also for animals and it was also a popular name for dogs, like Blackie, Snowy, Spot, Smudge etc. (see Guy Gibson’s dog and the re-dubbing in the Dambusters film as Digger).

From conversations with my parents, it was exposure to the US troops stationed in the UK and their treatment of segregated servicemen that started to make the general population of England aware that it wasn’t always an affectionate, patronising and slightly derogatory term for black people. The battle of Bamber Bridge was up the road. They were shocked at seeing the white American visceral, abusive use of the word towards the black soldiers - soldiers who had come over here to defend our families and homes. It meant that the term gradually fell out of use in polite society, at least in Lancashire to start with, and conversely it was enthusiastically embraced by the racists.

like a pp, I am also interested in why this word above all others must not be named. It seems the more rare it becomes, the more the power it has to shock.

like a pp, I am also interested in why this word above all others must not be named.

This has already been shown on the thread to be incorrect. It only seems that way because it's the word people tend to fixate on the most.

It is not the one 'people fixate the most on'. It's literally the word the thread is about.

Well, take that up with racists who use it as an excuse to say it. There are absolutely some people who use, 'but I'm only saying it because of x' as an excuse to be edgy and use a racial slur they cannot normally get away with saying.

I do think there are appropriate contexts, yes. But I think the man in that case used it when it was entirely unnecessary to do so to communicate what he was trying to communicate.

Just read in an interview with Delroy Lindo that he and Michael B Jordan were the first presenters of the evening at the Baftas. I just find that heartbreaking that John Davidson felt forced to leave more or less as soon as the evening began, barely after having initially been made to feel so welcome. Probably his only night at an event like that and he didn't even get to see the crew collect their awards in person or Robert Aramayo win for playing him. I had been wondering how long he'd been there and how much of the show he'd managed to see as part of the audience - I think he ended up in a side room somewhere.

Yes, that's what the thread is about. But it still is the word people fixate on the most. It's even the only one some people can think of, as shown by posters saying they don't know any others. It's the first or only word most people (online at least) reach for when they want to give an example of a slur, so it ends up being talked about more even when the topic isn't specifically about it.

I do think there are appropriate contexts, yes. But I think the man in that case used it when it was entirely unnecessary to do so to communicate what he was trying to communicate.

Err, 'necessary'? You've lost me. It was a tic. And I think PP have already provided ample clear explanations of what it involves.

Yes, that's what the thread is about. But it still is the word people fixate on the most.

Perhaps, but that's because it's one of the most 'magical' ones. And one of the most fashionably taboo ones. Plus, what's the issue with the main word under discussion being discussed?

Look, we are not going to agree on this. I am for clear communication. You cannot do that without clear language. It's not possible to communicate effectively if you attribute hidden motives to people's use of language. Usually, motives become clear during a conversation and in the context (in the case of the Baftas it's blindingly obvious, except some people just don't want to see).

I strongly object to being told not only what words I can use but what I'm thinking when I use them. How can you presume to know?

And I insist, many PP seem to have adopted a US 'sensitivity' which doesn't fit here. I do think this is the key of the diametrally opposed perspectives.

@stickygotstuck

"Err, 'necessary'? You've lost me. It was a tic. And I think PP have already provided ample clear explanations of what it involves."

I was responding to the paragraph in your comment where you were specifically talking about the case of the unfairly dismissed man. Not Davidson. That was quite clear.

"I am for clear communication. You cannot do that without clear language."

Great. So if you need to refer to the word, why not use the term 'the n word'? Then if someone says, 'what's that?' you can say the word in full. If your issue is clarity, then why would you have a problem with that?

"I strongly object to being told not only what words I can use but what I'm thinking when I use them. How can you presume to know?"

Well that's the thing. No one can know. But the fact that you would be insisting on unnecessarily using an offensive word in full doesn't bode well for your intentions. If your goal is clear communication, it's probably better to use a more neutral term so that you don't risk the implication that you're using the word in bad faith.

"And I insist, many PP seem to have adopted a US 'sensitivity' which doesn't fit here. I do think this is the key of the diametrally opposed perspectives."

A 'sensitivity'? Hmm. So you think Black British people who are offended or averse to the word (such as in the article I posted up-thread) are being too...what? Is it that you think that the UK has no racist history with the word? Because that's not true.

Completely agree.

Thank you @RedToothBrush ( my son has Tourette’s with coprolalia.) his motor tics aren’t too bad and he’s simply smashing life despite this awful condition but it’s heartbreaking some days seeing what it puts him through. And we are lucky his is nowhere near as bad as many Tourette’s sufferers. Vile condition.

@OtterlyAstounding , sorry I misunderstood the example. However, I believe that in the context of the man in the trial (the training session) it was totally appropriate to use the word. That's has been my point all along. Naming a word is the clearest way to refer to it. There's no clearer
way.

Well that's the thing. No one can know. But the fact that you would be insisting on unnecessarily using an offensive word in full doesn't bode well for your intentions.

I find that an astonishing comment, and frankly insulting, if I was that way inclined. Plus, as you yourself would admit, you cannot know. As I said, we're not going to agree.

Regarding sensitivity, I can't speak from personal experience, but I doubt the perspective of a black Brit would be exactly the same as that of a black US American. Because context. Besides the fact that it's used much less extensively in the UK.

I'll leave it now because I'm clearly failing at the business of clear communication.

White people have been asked not to use that word - it’s not unreasonable that if they can help it that they don’t. At all.

Bit more nuanced for mixed race people who ‘pass’ but again not unreasonable to not use an offensive word if you can help it ( ie no Tourette’s). And as far as I can tell people of colour only use the word within close knit friendship groups or acquaintances so their heritage is well understood.

Also I include the p word here which I’ve had thrown at me a lot as a darker skinned southern European heritage but still doesn’t affect me anything like it would a southern Asian person.

it’s all about intent which is not what causes a Tourette’s vocal tic. In fact it’s almost the opposite of intent- saying the thing they least want to say.

99% of this post is irrelevant to anything I've said on this thread, let alone the post you're quoting. I'm going to assume you're addressing the whole thread rather than my post because none of this relates to the points I made.

You quoted the first couple of sentences and then went on to say something close to what I'd already said in the rest of my post as if those sentences weren't there - while talking about "clear language", "hidden motives", US sensitivity" and "telling you what to think". That makes it obvious you skimmed and replied with what you were already planning to say rather than engaging with what I actually wrote.

Several posters have said they don’t know any other slurs that must not be named, which is exactly why this one gets fixated on and discussed more than others. That’s the only point I made. If you disagree with something that's easily visible in this thread, you haven't made that clear in any of your posts because you keep deflecting from my "clear language". I don't think that demonstrates 'good communication' or 'clear motives'.

If you're addressing the thread in general, then address the thread, not my post. The rest of what you’ve raised isn’t something I said, so I’m not going to discuss positions I haven’t taken. If you don't want to have a direct conversation and would rather gesture broadly at unrelated issues, I'll leave you to "think what you want".

Perhaps, but that's because it's one of the most 'magical' ones. And one of the most fashionably taboo ones

By the way, I'd love to know what other slurs posters consider "magical" and "fashionably taboo". I've only ever seen the n-word used as an example on this thread but clearly from this poster's comment and others', there must be more. If anyone can enlighten the thread - the way I did when posters said they couldn't think of any others at all - that would be helpful.

@stickygotstuck Out of interest, let's break that incident down, as you think it's an example of a time when using the N word in full was appropriate...

In 2020, during a Prevent anti-radicalisation course:

"The attendees were told by the facilitator that it was a “safe space." - source.
"Although the course was about radicalisation, the claimant’s evidence on the first day of this hearing was that he raised the issue of racism, specifically around Jewish jokes, stereotypes and websites.
During the course of this session the claimant asked a question of the facilitator around when situations should be reported as racism, as sometimes it was unclear.
She asked him to give an example and the claimant relayed a situation he had been in in 1985 when a black person had referred to his then girlfriend, who was also black, using the N word.
In the course of relating this example the claimant used the N word in full." - source.

Hm. I'm not sure why 'safe space' means 'say the N word in full'. I feel as though, if we're talking about 'safety', then that would make it 'unsafe'. I'm also not sure why a course about anti-radicalisation is the appropriate time to raise issues of racism...where the first example Stevenson thought of was from 1985!!
Why on earth, on an unrelated course, would you dredge up something that happened ~30 years ago, and use the N word in full?
And not only that, but there was no need to use the full word, as the context and situation would've made it quite clear what he meant.

I don't think he should've been fired, with an unblemished 32 year record, over some major foot-in-mouth, offensive moment - I think people deserve a second chance, and it sounds as though the facilitator didn't do a good job controlling the session. But I equally don't think the use of the word was appropriate.

Anyway, that tangent aside...

"I find that an astonishing comment, and frankly insulting, if I was that way inclined."

So you think it's astonishing and insulting if someone doesn't assume the best of a person who goes out of their way to use a racial slur? Seriously? You don't think, given the racism that lingers in the world, that some cynicism or wariness isn't deserved and earned? And you seem to think that the responsibility is on black people to assume the best, rather than on white people and other races to just not use the word?

I think it's astonishing and insulting that someone would choose to use a racial slur when it's not necessary. And I think it's astonishing and insulting of you to say that the issue is with black people not assuming good intent when they hear a racial slur, rather than that white people (and other races) just not using the word in full unless necessary. It seems a little like victim blaming?

"I doubt the perspective of a black Brit would be exactly the same as that of a black US American"

Black British people on this thread are telling you their perspectives, and you're actively ignoring and denying them.

Neither I nor anyone else has suggested that it would never be upsetting or confronting.

I don't know why you would think anyone is saying that.

I actually think that any word could be upsetting or confronting if used in a particular way, but clearly some are much more targeted for that purpose.

Yes, me too.

I don't think there are closet racists out there who are getting their jollies in from saying slur words in disingenuous contexts where they would otherwise be ok.

There are open racists who say them, or maybe say them in private. There are closet racists who don't say them for fear of getting in trouble. There are even racists who don't know they are racists who won't say them because they won't use racial slurs.

But people are not getting into conversations about linguistics, or joining the cast of The color Purple, in order to utter slurs.

Thinking that is an issue to worry about shows a very strange idea about other people's minds.

I have never once seen the other words you mention written with symbols instead of letters.

The only other example I have seen is G-D.

WTA: Actually, not quite true, I have seen it done where it would be edited out by an algorithm, also the word s#x - but that's a bit different.