Knowing a word is racist, harmful, and inappropriate does not make you a racist. The very same reasons we find it offensive are the reasons he shouted it.
Say someone’s colostomy bag broke in public. It smells like shit, nobody likes the smell of shit, the person with the colostomy bag probably doesn’t like the smell of shit either. Would you find it appropriate to say “this person loves the smell of shit, they intended to make us all smell their shit?”
them having colostomy bag breaking in public is not similar to calling people slurs, one is targeted one is public, a better example is if a person with that got on a bus knowing they have it and stood infront of a poc, knowing there’s a possibility they’ll do it on them, even though they don’t have control about that factor they had control over other factors in the situation and should still be held accountable.
Also there’s people who like the smell of shit, and there’s probably SOME people with that disorder who like the smell of shit, having a didability doesn’t stop you from having a kink, or being racist. in that same way having tourettes doesn’t cancel out being racist.
I find it sad that so many people are taking this position when the whole point of Davidson’s film was to show the ostracisation he has faced from society because of his neurodivergence.
Don’t even. You drew a comparison between someone with a disability attending an awards show and someone intentionally positioning themselves in a way to cause harm to PoC. You also implied in a “there’s no way to know” way that this person might be getting off on their disability, while in reality they are forced to live with the judgement of people like you who will attribute malice to something they have no control over.
them having colostomy bag breaking in public is not similar to calling people slurs,
Yes it is, in that it’s an unpleasant thing no one would like to have to deal with and which happened because of a disability and through no one’s fault.
If you call someone a slur for no reason, you’re an asshole. If you call someone a slur because of your disability which makes it impossible not to do that, you’re just trying to exist in this fucking world.
The difference is the individual has to deal with the colostomy bag, the ones who have to deal with the slurs are Black people not the one shouting them
The Tourettes guy lives with constant tics, movement and speech constantly being interrupted. No way of being sure you’ll get your sentence out, no way of being sure you won’t say something abhorrent. Tourettes fucking sucks to have.
You’re acting like a south park character. “Oh he gets to say all sorts of taboo stuff!”
And in case you didn’t notice, the guy with Tourettes has to deal with it too.
At the end of the day, a whole lot of Black people, from the actors on stage to Black members of the audience to Black viewers watching the broadcast, have to hear some white dude say the n-word. What actions have been taken to address the very real harm caused by this? This thread and the previous thread that got locked have said much to explain why the white dude said the n-word. But the fundamental gap of understanding between the POC users and the white users here is that his intent doesn’t matter an iota. The fact that he said it is already enough.
If you’re not convinced, notice how I used the term “n-word” even though I’m using the word in a completely clinical non-racist context. “John Davidson said the n-word during this year’s BAFTA” is a completely neutral sentence reporting something that happened, but it would be grossly inappropriate to spell out the word and go, “uh aktually, I’m not being racist because I’m just reporting what actually happened.” The word is censored and rightfully so. So, the discussions about Tourettes, while enlightening, is ultimately not very relevant. He as a white man said the n-word in front of many Black people and that is good enough for those Black people to rightfully demand an apology and restitution from him, BAFTA, and the BBC.
The tourettes is integral to the discussion, because that is why he said it. There was no intent behind the word. Not acknowledging that is akin to not acknowledging that the word is hurtful and the way the broadcaster has handled it is harmful.
No, the why is only important insofar as to find ways to mitigate or prevent it from happening again. As far as addressing restitution is concerned, it doesn’t mean a whole lot. If I knocked over your vase, the restitutional act would be to replace your vase or pay you money. Examining the particular events which led me to knock over the vase is only important to check whether I knocked over your vase for the sake of preventing additional damage or prevent harm to you. Outside of those two exceptions, the particular reasons why I knocked over your vase (I was too clumsy, I had too much to drink, I didn’t see the vase, I thought the vase was more sturdy) doesn’t alter the proper restitutional act of replacing the vase.
I guess I fundamentally disagree. If someone shoved you into the vase it would be very different, even if you were the one to knock it over. If I was hosting a big party and we were all getting drunk and I’d placed my vase near the dancefloor and you slip and knock it over, then that would also be different to me from the situations you describe. If you were just dancing wildly and knocked it over that would still be different to me. If you were just visiting and knocked over a vase of mine on accident then I would probably not feel like you would have to replace it. Accidents happen and things exist to be used until they can’t.
Separating an action from what caused it seems like causes more harm than anything else.
In this scenario I’d say the broadcaster is the party host who placed a vase right next to a bunch of drunken dancers. Should probably have censored the slurs instead of “free palestine”.
No they aren’t. You and others are being ableist because
You refuse to engage with what a Tourettes diagnosis entails
You continue to behave as if this was somehow a conscious choice, even when informed otherwise
You and others want him to either stay out of public vision or stop having Tourettes
You argue that Tourettes is not something that impacts the one with the diagnosis. Like you are Cartman.
You act as though his tics somehow reveal something about his morality
I haven’t seen anyone say anything akin to “actually it was really cool and awesome he said that slur and you’re ableist if you think otherwise”.
Edit: and I can see from the other thread that you know all this already as it has been explained to you several times. So I don’t know why you keep arguing against a position you know noone holds, nor why you keep ignoring the actual arguments set forth for you.
You are aware you are also an individual and part of public discourse, right? Why are you being this obtuse, pretending like he isn’t receiving any backlash. If there were no backlash none of us would be arguing right now. And you know this. Why do you insist on making this discussion so much more difficult than it already is?
Because there’s a racial dimension to the discourse which I’m acknowledging exists, if you want to debate in a hypothetical vacuum where the race element is absent, then find someone else
Noone is arguing there isn’t a racial dimension to this. You are however arguing he isn’t facing backlash, when he is. Talk about arguing in a vacuum lol. You keep picking and choosing what it is you want to engage with.
I love how you don’t dispute the fact I stated, just vaguely accuse me of ableism and racism as if that stands on its own without explanation
There is a racial divide in this discourse, because dense white people who are selective in how seriously they take marginalization forget basic concepts like intent =/= impact when it comes to Black people
My point was that the disabled individual is not always in control of their disability, I never meant to say Black people should just deal with it.
I don’t think either side of this argument (on this site, at least) should feel or be made to feel like they are defending an ableist or racist viewpoint when they are defending quite the opposite.
Knowing a word is racist, harmful, and inappropriate does not make you a racist. The very same reasons we find it offensive are the reasons he shouted it.
Say someone’s colostomy bag broke in public. It smells like shit, nobody likes the smell of shit, the person with the colostomy bag probably doesn’t like the smell of shit either. Would you find it appropriate to say “this person loves the smell of shit, they intended to make us all smell their shit?”
them having colostomy bag breaking in public is not similar to calling people slurs, one is targeted one is public, a better example is if a person with that got on a bus knowing they have it and stood infront of a poc, knowing there’s a possibility they’ll do it on them, even though they don’t have control about that factor they had control over other factors in the situation and should still be held accountable.
Also there’s people who like the smell of shit, and there’s probably SOME people with that disorder who like the smell of shit, having a didability doesn’t stop you from having a kink, or being racist. in that same way having tourettes doesn’t cancel out being racist.
So we’re just going straight to “disabled people should not be allowed out in public”, I see.
I find it sad that so many people are taking this position when the whole point of Davidson’s film was to show the ostracisation he has faced from society because of his neurodivergence.
The correlation is having a disability that can make other people uncomfortable.
Yeah, you’re right, people with disabilities should not be allowed in public…/s
Are you actually saying this person with Tourette’s “might” have a kink for calling people slurs? Lmao that is so ableist
Cracker weaponizing marginalized groups and twisting my words gold medal championist.
Don’t even. You drew a comparison between someone with a disability attending an awards show and someone intentionally positioning themselves in a way to cause harm to PoC. You also implied in a “there’s no way to know” way that this person might be getting off on their disability, while in reality they are forced to live with the judgement of people like you who will attribute malice to something they have no control over.
woah there, save up your energy for the next championship.
I hope you come to understand how what you said is ableist
Ableist weaponising their own identity as an excuse to not have empathy for others struggles gold medal championist
Yes it is, in that it’s an unpleasant thing no one would like to have to deal with and which happened because of a disability and through no one’s fault.
If you call someone a slur for no reason, you’re an asshole. If you call someone a slur because of your disability which makes it impossible not to do that, you’re just trying to exist in this fucking world.
The difference is the individual has to deal with the colostomy bag, the ones who have to deal with the slurs are Black people not the one shouting them
The Tourettes guy lives with constant tics, movement and speech constantly being interrupted. No way of being sure you’ll get your sentence out, no way of being sure you won’t say something abhorrent. Tourettes fucking sucks to have.
You’re acting like a south park character. “Oh he gets to say all sorts of taboo stuff!”
And in case you didn’t notice, the guy with Tourettes has to deal with it too.
At the end of the day, a whole lot of Black people, from the actors on stage to Black members of the audience to Black viewers watching the broadcast, have to hear some white dude say the n-word. What actions have been taken to address the very real harm caused by this? This thread and the previous thread that got locked have said much to explain why the white dude said the n-word. But the fundamental gap of understanding between the POC users and the white users here is that his intent doesn’t matter an iota. The fact that he said it is already enough.
If you’re not convinced, notice how I used the term “n-word” even though I’m using the word in a completely clinical non-racist context. “John Davidson said the n-word during this year’s BAFTA” is a completely neutral sentence reporting something that happened, but it would be grossly inappropriate to spell out the word and go, “uh aktually, I’m not being racist because I’m just reporting what actually happened.” The word is censored and rightfully so. So, the discussions about Tourettes, while enlightening, is ultimately not very relevant. He as a white man said the n-word in front of many Black people and that is good enough for those Black people to rightfully demand an apology and restitution from him, BAFTA, and the BBC.
The tourettes is integral to the discussion, because that is why he said it. There was no intent behind the word. Not acknowledging that is akin to not acknowledging that the word is hurtful and the way the broadcaster has handled it is harmful.
No, the why is only important insofar as to find ways to mitigate or prevent it from happening again. As far as addressing restitution is concerned, it doesn’t mean a whole lot. If I knocked over your vase, the restitutional act would be to replace your vase or pay you money. Examining the particular events which led me to knock over the vase is only important to check whether I knocked over your vase for the sake of preventing additional damage or prevent harm to you. Outside of those two exceptions, the particular reasons why I knocked over your vase (I was too clumsy, I had too much to drink, I didn’t see the vase, I thought the vase was more sturdy) doesn’t alter the proper restitutional act of replacing the vase.
I guess I fundamentally disagree. If someone shoved you into the vase it would be very different, even if you were the one to knock it over. If I was hosting a big party and we were all getting drunk and I’d placed my vase near the dancefloor and you slip and knock it over, then that would also be different to me from the situations you describe. If you were just dancing wildly and knocked it over that would still be different to me. If you were just visiting and knocked over a vase of mine on accident then I would probably not feel like you would have to replace it. Accidents happen and things exist to be used until they can’t.
Separating an action from what caused it seems like causes more harm than anything else.
In this scenario I’d say the broadcaster is the party host who placed a vase right next to a bunch of drunken dancers. Should probably have censored the slurs instead of “free palestine”.
Intent does not erase impact. Disability explains occurrence, not institutional failure
Tourettes sucks, doesn’t change the fact slurs caused harm
Yeah? No one is arguing that it doesn’t
Yes, they are, that’s what the accusations of ableism are amounting to
No they aren’t. You and others are being ableist because
I haven’t seen anyone say anything akin to “actually it was really cool and awesome he said that slur and you’re ableist if you think otherwise”.
Edit: and I can see from the other thread that you know all this already as it has been explained to you several times. So I don’t know why you keep arguing against a position you know noone holds, nor why you keep ignoring the actual arguments set forth for you.
there are black folks with tourettes, some of them are on social media
Oh, the guy with Tourette’s, too, has to deal with the slur, as is evidenced by the massive backlash he’s facing.
What backlash, he’s drowning in an ocean of white sympathy
You are aware you are also an individual and part of public discourse, right? Why are you being this obtuse, pretending like he isn’t receiving any backlash. If there were no backlash none of us would be arguing right now. And you know this. Why do you insist on making this discussion so much more difficult than it already is?
Because there’s a racial dimension to the discourse which I’m acknowledging exists, if you want to debate in a hypothetical vacuum where the race element is absent, then find someone else
Noone is arguing there isn’t a racial dimension to this. You are however arguing he isn’t facing backlash, when he is. Talk about arguing in a vacuum lol. You keep picking and choosing what it is you want to engage with.
strangely your reply is not only ableist but also racist again black people and it’s ironic you dont see that
I love how you don’t dispute the fact I stated, just vaguely accuse me of ableism and racism as if that stands on its own without explanation
There is a racial divide in this discourse, because dense white people who are selective in how seriously they take marginalization forget basic concepts like intent =/= impact when it comes to Black people
you also dont dispute the accusation of racism or ableism
and for the record im saying what you said was anti-black racism, to be clear, and you STILL dont see it
but im not interested in arguing with you as you clearly have no interest in doing better
Removed by mod
Pretending like that’s not actually your take lmao
Removed by mod
My point was that the disabled individual is not always in control of their disability, I never meant to say Black people should just deal with it.
I don’t think either side of this argument (on this site, at least) should feel or be made to feel like they are defending an ableist or racist viewpoint when they are defending quite the opposite.