Bullshit.
-
-
@venitamathias Entirely reasonable. It's painful. Please be well, and thank you for the discussion.
@msbellows @venitamathias It's very painful to read. Period.
-
Hoo boy. I have a lot of complicated thoughts and feelings around the BAFTA incident, in part because I have Tourette's (though, thank God, not coprolalia) AND am a lawyer/mediator specializing in disability accommodations (in educational settings). In a nutshell, though:
1. Unless he's a secret racist who shouted the n-word intentionally, the utterance itself truly was an involuntary act for which the speaker should not be blamed. Coprolalia isn't random; it makes people say the MOST transgressive thing possible in the context, which is exactly what happened here. It's troubling to me that some people refuse to accept this reality, which is a form of ableism.
2. The harm to Black people hearing that word nevertheless is extremely real, and the organizers completely fucked up both in how they structured the show and in responding to it afterwards. I understand that the speaker is a Tourette's activist, so I'm guessing both he and the organizers wanted some of the obscenities to be heard by the audience because, yeah, sometimes one person's disability is a little awkward for the people around them, and the people around them need to grow the fuck up and learn to accept it. But that doesn't mean that the harm to hearers can be ignored, especially when racist terms, not just obscene ones, are part of the person's known vocabulary. Disability accommodations require creativity and compromise; that doesn't seem to have happened here, other than a statement given to the audience at the start explaining his disability (which: good, but that approach alone fails to account for the substantial difference between ordinary vulgarities and racist obscenities). And the subsequent rationale that "Look, this is just the nature of Tourette's!" as if disability trumps racism is pitifully inadequate, because it ignores the harm to Black viewers. Tourette's sucks. Racism sucks. Don't minimize either one.
3. BBC has absolutely no excuse for not bleeping out the n-word even if they left in the other vulgarities, and for them to refuse to do so – to treat the n word as if it were no different than "fuck" – shows a profound insensitivity and colonialist mindset, and someone needs to get fired – especially because presumably the same person did bleep out "free Palestine!"
@msbellows it sounds like the man was being generally disruptive and should have left or been removed.
It's one thing to accommodate for disabilities, but he shouldn't be allowed to stay somewhere if he's hurling insults at people. This isn't someone needing a sign language interpreter or to have a ramp to get around. This is something that was disrupting a celebratory event and he was verbally attacking people. If he can't help himself, then he should excuse himself from the event.
-
Hoo boy. I have a lot of complicated thoughts and feelings around the BAFTA incident, in part because I have Tourette's (though, thank God, not coprolalia) AND am a lawyer/mediator specializing in disability accommodations (in educational settings). In a nutshell, though:
1. Unless he's a secret racist who shouted the n-word intentionally, the utterance itself truly was an involuntary act for which the speaker should not be blamed. Coprolalia isn't random; it makes people say the MOST transgressive thing possible in the context, which is exactly what happened here. It's troubling to me that some people refuse to accept this reality, which is a form of ableism.
2. The harm to Black people hearing that word nevertheless is extremely real, and the organizers completely fucked up both in how they structured the show and in responding to it afterwards. I understand that the speaker is a Tourette's activist, so I'm guessing both he and the organizers wanted some of the obscenities to be heard by the audience because, yeah, sometimes one person's disability is a little awkward for the people around them, and the people around them need to grow the fuck up and learn to accept it. But that doesn't mean that the harm to hearers can be ignored, especially when racist terms, not just obscene ones, are part of the person's known vocabulary. Disability accommodations require creativity and compromise; that doesn't seem to have happened here, other than a statement given to the audience at the start explaining his disability (which: good, but that approach alone fails to account for the substantial difference between ordinary vulgarities and racist obscenities). And the subsequent rationale that "Look, this is just the nature of Tourette's!" as if disability trumps racism is pitifully inadequate, because it ignores the harm to Black viewers. Tourette's sucks. Racism sucks. Don't minimize either one.
3. BBC has absolutely no excuse for not bleeping out the n-word even if they left in the other vulgarities, and for them to refuse to do so – to treat the n word as if it were no different than "fuck" – shows a profound insensitivity and colonialist mindset, and someone needs to get fired – especially because presumably the same person did bleep out "free Palestine!"
@msbellows
1. He shouldn't have attended. If he won, he could have had a pre-recorded, edited speech. Then, he could have prevented any of this. -
@msbellows it sounds like the man was being generally disruptive and should have left or been removed.
It's one thing to accommodate for disabilities, but he shouldn't be allowed to stay somewhere if he's hurling insults at people. This isn't someone needing a sign language interpreter or to have a ramp to get around. This is something that was disrupting a celebratory event and he was verbally attacking people. If he can't help himself, then he should excuse himself from the event.
@stellarsarah He was the subject of a film about Tourette's that was discussed in the show, and I assume that as a Tourette's activist he was unwilling to mask his neurodivergence just for the polite comfort of others. All of which I'm fine with – it's similar to autistic people refusing to hide their stimming behavior – except (as I've said) racist slurs are different from mere vulgarities, and I fault him and the organizers for not understanding that and balancing his right to be himself against Black people's right to be free from racist slurs.
-
@msbellows
1. He shouldn't have attended. If he won, he could have had a pre-recorded, edited speech. Then, he could have prevented any of this.@katrinakatrinka Please keep reading for discussion of his activism, his right not to be required to mask, and the tension between that and the rights of Black people to be free from slurs.
-
@katrinakatrinka Please keep reading for discussion of his activism, his right not to be required to mask, and the tension between that and the rights of Black people to be free from slurs.
@msbellows
The point isn't what should have been done *to* him. If his intent was to not offend, then he, knowing better than anyone what he was likely to involuntarily yell, could have taken the precautions to *self-censor*.Therefore, he chose himself over anyone else who might have to hear him. I can judge that choice.
-
@msbellows
The point isn't what should have been done *to* him. If his intent was to not offend, then he, knowing better than anyone what he was likely to involuntarily yell, could have taken the precautions to *self-censor*.Therefore, he chose himself over anyone else who might have to hear him. I can judge that choice.
@katrinakatrinka Would you object to his uncensored involvement if he had only cursed, not used the n-word?
-
@msbellows John Davidson chose to use a slur on Black men. Haven't read him using offensive terms towards anyone else that night. He said what he said, and it is neither acceptable or appreciated.
In addition to yelling the n-word, Davidson could also be heard yelling, “Shut the f--- up,” and “f--- you” during various points in the ceremony.
From https://people.com/john-davidson-deeply-mortified-n-word-baftas-incident-11912076
The only direct slur via tic that night was the profoundly racist one.
The thing white people like me don't understand, don't feel in our gut, is the 250+ years of systemic dehumanization and torture carried by that word. It's not a word. It's a reminder and a promise. It carries weight we cannot imagine. Why he said it matters far less than the fact that it was said. It was said and the reaction by most news outlets is to focus on the illness that said it.
Focus on Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo, Oscar nominated actors from one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the season being reminded that some people still never see them as anything other than that word. John Davidson didn't mean it. His illness chose the word. But there are millions of white people who do mean it, every day. People filled with overflowing hatred. When they hear that it doesn't matter why it was said. Just that it was said and it put those two incredibly talented men and every other person of color within earshot "in their place".
The BBC could have censored it. They had a two hour delay. They could have offered an honest apology and acknowledged how deadly that word is, and it is deadly.
They did neither. They should be the ones blamed and punished. They knew and they did not prepare. They were told and they didn't listen.
I'm sad for John Davidson and the "mortification" he feels. He was there to celebrate a movie made about his own life to shine a light on his disability.
I'm more sad for every BIPOC who saw this live or read about it and was reminded that they are never safe, not even when they do everything right and are at the top of their game.
One word tells them it will never be enough.
That's the legacy we have to understand. Slavery. Literal chatel slavery. That's what that word conjures. Can you imagine?
But I'm white. I've already spent too much time talking instead of listening.
-
@katrinakatrinka Would you object to his uncensored involvement if he had only cursed, not used the n-word?
@msbellows
The point is he made the choice to sit in that audience. He knew he was ticking. He knew it was a possibility he would yell it and he chose to stay throughout. Even after he yelled it.I judge his choice.
-
@stellarsarah He was the subject of a film about Tourette's that was discussed in the show, and I assume that as a Tourette's activist he was unwilling to mask his neurodivergence just for the polite comfort of others. All of which I'm fine with – it's similar to autistic people refusing to hide their stimming behavior – except (as I've said) racist slurs are different from mere vulgarities, and I fault him and the organizers for not understanding that and balancing his right to be himself against Black people's right to be free from racist slurs.
@msbellows this isn't just "polite comfort". The man was literally hurling verbal abuse at others. Someone isn't allowed to stim by slapping other people, that man is at the very least incredibly rude by staying in that environment and being an asshole to everyone else.
-
In addition to yelling the n-word, Davidson could also be heard yelling, “Shut the f--- up,” and “f--- you” during various points in the ceremony.
From https://people.com/john-davidson-deeply-mortified-n-word-baftas-incident-11912076
The only direct slur via tic that night was the profoundly racist one.
The thing white people like me don't understand, don't feel in our gut, is the 250+ years of systemic dehumanization and torture carried by that word. It's not a word. It's a reminder and a promise. It carries weight we cannot imagine. Why he said it matters far less than the fact that it was said. It was said and the reaction by most news outlets is to focus on the illness that said it.
Focus on Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo, Oscar nominated actors from one of the most critically acclaimed movies of the season being reminded that some people still never see them as anything other than that word. John Davidson didn't mean it. His illness chose the word. But there are millions of white people who do mean it, every day. People filled with overflowing hatred. When they hear that it doesn't matter why it was said. Just that it was said and it put those two incredibly talented men and every other person of color within earshot "in their place".
The BBC could have censored it. They had a two hour delay. They could have offered an honest apology and acknowledged how deadly that word is, and it is deadly.
They did neither. They should be the ones blamed and punished. They knew and they did not prepare. They were told and they didn't listen.
I'm sad for John Davidson and the "mortification" he feels. He was there to celebrate a movie made about his own life to shine a light on his disability.
I'm more sad for every BIPOC who saw this live or read about it and was reminded that they are never safe, not even when they do everything right and are at the top of their game.
One word tells them it will never be enough.
That's the legacy we have to understand. Slavery. Literal chatel slavery. That's what that word conjures. Can you imagine?
But I'm white. I've already spent too much time talking instead of listening.
-
@msbellows
The point is he made the choice to sit in that audience. He knew he was ticking. He knew it was a possibility he would yell it and he chose to stay throughout. Even after he yelled it.I judge his choice.
@katrinakatrinka You didn't answer my question, though.
-
@katrinakatrinka You didn't answer my question, though.
@msbellows
You're constructing a straw man to fight. I told you my position. -
@msbellows this isn't just "polite comfort". The man was literally hurling verbal abuse at others. Someone isn't allowed to stim by slapping other people, that man is at the very least incredibly rude by staying in that environment and being an asshole to everyone else.
@stellarsarah Would you say the same if he had cursed without saying the n-word?
-
@msbellows
You're constructing a straw man to fight. I told you my position.@katrinakatrinka I'm truly not. I'm trying to understand whether you think he should not have been allowed to blurt vulgarities, or just this one vulgarity in particular; whether they should have bleeped out all vulgarities, or just this one. It's a substantial difference, to an antiracist person with Tourette's.
-
@stellarsarah Would you say the same if he had cursed without saying the n-word?
@msbellows actually yes. It sounds like he was just yelling "fuck you" at people way too much too, which isn't really okay in this setting either. It sounds like being in a crowd triggers him and he perhaps shouldn't be there, except maybe in a soundproof booth.
The racial abuse that he hurled at Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo was absolutely unacceptable (and doubly so that the BBC let it air).
-
@katrinakatrinka I'm truly not. I'm trying to understand whether you think he should not have been allowed to blurt vulgarities, or just this one vulgarity in particular; whether they should have bleeped out all vulgarities, or just this one. It's a substantial difference, to an antiracist person with Tourette's.
@msbellows
What you propose is not what happened. Therefore, not my argument. I'm not interested in "what ifs"."A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man -
@venitamathias Even if it's Tourette's,they should have bleeped this out. And removed the guy from the venue. Apologies and sympathy not accepted.
@IveyJanette @venitamathias they didn't edit this out, but they censored a Palestinian filmmaker saying "Free Palestine". this were deliberate decisions by the BBC.
-
@rochelimit Anyway I'm not trying to get in a back and forth. But I thought your comment was super condescending and pedantic, and totally lacking in any sort of empathy for Black people.
So, you sit with that and make it your own problem, please, instead of implying you know how we ought to react to slurs.
@thiswomanswerk
My first comment was to agree with a black poster, that it is wrong to suggest that a person with a neurological condition should be kept away from the ceremony because words, which do not represent that person's feelings, will cause upset.The idea that one innocent group should be protected at the expense of another is something worth debating, isn't it? When balancing rights, the importance of context cannot be ignored.
