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.

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

It is something I have personally encountered. It may not be hugely common but it does happen, so I think you're being very naive to think it doesn't.

The idea of magical language can apply to any word. The point is that it's devoid of context, and language actually doesn't work that way, unless you believe in magic. Our understanding of every word is determined by the context.

It's like that idiot in the US a few years ago who complained about the pictures of Welsh miners in a diner. Because they were in "blackface". Pretty much everyone thought he was clearly a moron, or maybe was trying to hurt the diner, because it is very obvious that it is not just having dark pigment on a person's face that is potentially offensive, regardless of how it came to be there. But his argument was essentially what some in the thread are saying - that it was triggering because of the historical facts around blackface performances, the context of being from another time, place, and having another cause is irelevant.

You know people who try to find excuses to say rude words? Rather like pre-schoolers saying "poop", or teenagers finding reasons to say "sex".

Did they tell you that is what they were doing?

I have encountered people who do that, yes – who start off pretending they're engaging in good faith but seem to relish say the word in full, and then end up revealing the fact that, actually, they're openly racist throughout the course of the conversation.

I'm not sure why that's so difficult to believe.

All very interesting, but no examples have been given yet as requested. I'm still curious to know which other slurs are considered "magical" or "fashionably taboo" besides the n-word.

Most of these are terrible words and definitely closer than your earlier examples but no, I don't think any of them operate quite like the N word.

Some of them are commonly used in full, e.g. the R word seems to be quite popular in the US. I often hear the P word or the C word used quite casually. It's disgusting but it's not shocking in the same way as the N word.

There was a screenshot doing the rounds in the wake of BAFTA - it was Google's AI saying 'See more search results about n-s' only it used the full word. It was incredibly jarring to see and it occurred to me that it's the only time I've heard or read the full word throughout this clusterfuck (outside the usual contexts of black community usage and films about slavery or racism).

Other words you list are more complex, e.g. 'Gypsy'. From Friends, Families and Travellers:

Is it okay to say ‘Gypsy’?

It depends. ‘Gypsy’ is sometimes seen as offensive or as a racial slur. However, there are several Romani groups in Europe who have claimed this word and use it with pride. This includes many individuals within the UK who proudly use the word ‘Gypsy’ to describe themselves. It’s best to ask individuals how they like to be referred to and follow their lead.

https://www.gypsy-traveller.org/about-us/frequently-asked-questions/

Friends, Families and Travellers use the word liberally throughout their site and there is no suggestion that only Romanis are allowed to use it.

The only other word I can see there that has been claimed by the group it is aimed at is 'Dyke' and it is certainly true that a lot of lesbians who refer to themselves as dykes do not like non-lesbians calling them that but it's not an unsayable word. Every year there are dyke marches in cities around the world, how impractical would it be to organise and advertise if only lesbians were allowed to say or write the word? (and can you even imagine an N- March?)

I do not believe for a second that if JD had ticced any of those words on your list that people would still be discussing it two weeks later.

@OtterlyAstounding
And clearly, the judge thought the dismissal was wrongful, which kind of disproves the point you're making that it's not considered acceptable?

The dismissal was found to be unfair because the employer failed to consider whether the matter could have been dealt with informally, through mediation or other action short of a disciplinary hearing, or whether a sanction short of dismissal would have been appropriate, and all this went against the employers own procedures. Also the employer had mischaracterised the claimant as not showing remorse when in fact he was extremely apologetic and said he felt terrible about the distress caused.

The judge definitely did not think that use of the word was acceptable. He said:

I also make a finding that by deliberately using the N word in full the claimant’s culpable conduct significantly contributed to his dismissal. I therefore reduce any compensatory award by 90% under section 123 (6) ERA 1996.

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

It wasn't necessary at all. The judge in the Borg-Neal case managed to avoid using the word in full anywhere in his judgment, even when directly quoting. I'm amazed you're OK with it.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e88740691aa3000da56dec/Carl_Borg-Neal__vsLloyds_Banking_Group_Plc.pdf

Trans identifying people can use the toilets associated with their sex.
They can also choose to use disabled toilets or unisex toilets / single stand alone toilets.

Someone with Tourette Syndrome has no such "choice" over their utterances.

Your comparison is nonsense.

@OtterlyAstounding The BBC article you posted earlier is good and expresses a few things I've been trying to say:

"It's the filthiest, dirtiest, nastiest word in the English language." - Christopher Darden, prosecutor in the OJ Simpson trial

"It's actually probably the most offensive word in English," - David Lammy

Dr Stanford says white people cannot use the word because its origin in slavery hasn't been lost.

"These are people who have created the word in the first place, but who have now lost power in relation to it, they have lost the power to use it with impunity, they have lost the power to reclaim it."

Prof Andrews adds: "If you understand the history of the word and how it's been used, it's not for white people to use, it's not for anybody else to use.

"If you look at the way that we use the word, which would be more acceptable - and I'm not saying I'm pro using it - it's about endearment, it's about family, it's about connections, it's about recognising the situation that we're in.

"So if you're not black you can't do that. You actually can't use the word in the way that we use it. It's not possible, because you're not in that space. So any other usage of it is completely wrong."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53749800

The thing I found most surprising in that article is that the BBC were defending the use of the full word in a news report about a racially aggravated attack as recently as 2020. In fact it was the very same month in which Mr Stevenson used it in the training session which led to his dismissal.

I'm not sure what your point is?

@PencilsInSpace
"Also the employer had mischaracterised the claimant as not showing remorse when in fact he was extremely apologetic and said he felt terrible about the distress caused."

I'm sure he said he was, yes. I address the case in a comment up thread, discussing what the incident actually was, which was him bringing up a racist incident from 1985 at an anti-radicalisation session. A little odd and very unnecessary.

"I'm amazed you're OK with it."

That's strange, because I've made it quite clear that I personally don't think the word is one that can never be said. Just that, where there is no need to use it, why do so? I actually think the judgement in the second case you link is poor because, during a legal judgement, it never once says what the word in question is. It's unclear.

No, it seems you never are. I suggest you refer back to our previous conversation.

Yes, that happens when an interaction happens over the course of several days. I'm afraid I can't be bothered reading back to refresh my memory, quite frankly, as you don't seem to have anything of interest to add to the discussion.

I actually think the judgement in the second case you link is poor because, during a legal judgement, it never once says what the word in question is. It's unclear.

Not a single person is unclear about what the word was in that judgment.

How about "Voldemort".

Really, if you won't engage with what people say, why would anyone bother speaking to you.

Engage with what? I'm afraid you're the one not engaging. I asked a straightforward question that you didn't answer. Instead you just gave a lecture on the theory of magical language, a point about context, an analogy about Welsh miners. Zero examples. Your post didn't address what I asked, so there wasn't anything to "engage" with.

If you don't have an example, there's no need to speak for anyone else or pretend otherwise. Just ignore.

Voldemort is a good one though, but I can't say I've noticed a demographic of Voldemorts yet.