Bafta awards controversy

[Anonymous]

I'm a PP but also Black. Maybe, the only one on this thread. I can't speak for all Black Americans or individuals but I don't fault John Davidson for his condition. He can't control his Tourettes, he shouldn't have to live as a shut-in, and he should absolutely be allowed to attend a major awards show that's potentially honoring a film about his life. I also think he should publicly apologize to the targets of his outburst in the same way most decent people will apologize for accidentally stepping on someone else's foot. Unintentional, sure but the person still has a hurt foot or dirty shoes.

The fault of this is 100% with BAFTA and the BBC. BAFTA should have better prepared the presenters and crowd for potentially offensive outbursts... not just "potential disruptions." There should have been more context provided so people weren't caught off guard and could maybe even respond in a way that would defuse any controversy.

Worse is the decision to not edit the outburst. That's inexcusable and there should be significant blowback. I don't know how Europe's equivalent of an FCC operates, but the BBC should be fined significantly and, if Black performers boycott the BAFTA's moving forward, that should be understandable. The fact that "poltical" statements were censored, but the outburst was allowed to remain in the broadcast seems intentional and there's very little explanation that would make me feel otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

He didn't *intend* to cause harm. However, we now believe words cause physical harm and intent no longer matters. Outcomes are all that is important.

So how do we hold those with dementia responsible for the harm they cause? How do we hold those with severe autism responsible for the harm they cause?

[Anonymous]

The look on delroy lindos face broke my heart.

No, his and all black actors right to not have the n word yelled at them in the workplace is not secondary to other people.

I am sure that a prestigious event like the BAFTAs have VIP suites that the BBC could have invited John Davidson to watch the event in. I am sure that he would much prefer being in a safe space where he can relax and not have to be mindful about the possibility of outbursts. He could have been paired with his own family and the I Swear cast/crew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

He didn't *intend* to cause harm. However, we now believe words cause physical harm and intent no longer matters. Outcomes are all that is important.

Intent DOES matter. Of course, it does.

Also, response to impact can be a choice too. When the blind person bumps into you, you can understand and move on, or push them back, or call the police and file battery charges. When the child with cerebral palsy spills their drink and it drips on your shoe, you can wipe off your shoe, or scream and cause a public scene, or smack the kid in anger. You moderate yoru response precisely becasue intent adn ability to control behavior does matter.

It's a horrific word that no one wants to hear and it is triggering, and yet when you choose to understand how it came to be utterred, you can choose how to respond: with empathy, or by humiliating the individual with a disability, or by running them through with your anger. You do have a choice in this, whereas, he dd not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a PP but also Black. Maybe, the only one on this thread. I can't speak for all Black Americans or individuals but I don't fault John Davidson for his condition. He can't control his Tourettes, he shouldn't have to live as a shut-in, and he should absolutely be allowed to attend a major awards show that's potentially honoring a film about his life. I also think he should publicly apologize to the targets of his outburst in the same way most decent people will apologize for accidentally stepping on someone else's foot. Unintentional, sure but the person still has a hurt foot or dirty shoes.

The fault of this is 100% with BAFTA and the BBC. BAFTA should have better prepared the presenters and crowd for potentially offensive outbursts... not just "potential disruptions." There should have been more context provided so people weren't caught off guard and could maybe even respond in a way that would defuse any controversy.

Worse is the decision to not edit the outburst. That's inexcusable and there should be significant blowback. I don't know how Europe's equivalent of an FCC operates, but the BBC should be fined significantly and, if Black performers boycott the BAFTA's moving forward, that should be understandable. The fact that "poltical" statements were censored, but the outburst was allowed to remain in the broadcast seems intentional and there's very little explanation that would make me feel otherwise.

You can control your foot. He can't control Copralalia. So he can apologize but he could have many more outbursts for things he has just apologized for. Apologizing makes sense if you have control. If you have a muscular condition and can't control your foot due to muscle contractions and spasms so you step on my foot - apologize, then step on my foot again, apologize, step on my foot again, apologize, step on my foot again, apologize...what is the point and where does it end?

[Anonymous]

Do you want to be angry or do you want to learn? Many posters here have offer credible, research-based explanations of what Davidson did, that entirely fit with the characteristics of Tourette's. Yet so many refuse to consider that their own (layperson's) opinion is not reality. It's astounding sometimes the effort it must take to remain ignorant.

Again, I strongly encourage every doubter on this thread to give the movie a watch. It is a fantastic film regardless, and it's ridiculous that it was snubbed so by the Oscars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a PP but also Black. Maybe, the only one on this thread. I can't speak for all Black Americans or individuals but I don't fault John Davidson for his condition. He can't control his Tourettes, he shouldn't have to live as a shut-in, and he should absolutely be allowed to attend a major awards show that's potentially honoring a film about his life. I also think he should publicly apologize to the targets of his outburst in the same way most decent people will apologize for accidentally stepping on someone else's foot. Unintentional, sure but the person still has a hurt foot or dirty shoes.

The fault of this is 100% with BAFTA and the BBC. BAFTA should have better prepared the presenters and crowd for potentially offensive outbursts... not just "potential disruptions." There should have been more context provided so people weren't caught off guard and could maybe even respond in a way that would defuse any controversy.

Worse is the decision to not edit the outburst. That's inexcusable and there should be significant blowback. I don't know how Europe's equivalent of an FCC operates, but the BBC should be fined significantly and, if Black performers boycott the BAFTA's moving forward, that should be understandable. The fact that "poltical" statements were censored, but the outburst was allowed to remain in the broadcast seems intentional and there's very little explanation that would make me feel otherwise.

You can control your foot. He can't control Copralalia. So he can apologize but he could have many more outbursts for things he has just apologized for. Apologizing makes sense if you have control. If you have a muscular condition and can't control your foot due to muscle contractions and spasms so you step on my foot - apologize, then step on my foot again, apologize, step on my foot again, apologize, step on my foot again, apologize...what is the point and where does it end?

This is silly. Apologizing makes the most sense when you do something without intent of causing harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you want to be angry or do you want to learn? Many posters here have offer credible, research-based explanations of what Davidson did, that entirely fit with the characteristics of Tourette's. Yet so many refuse to consider that their own (layperson's) opinion is not reality. It's astounding sometimes the effort it must take to remain ignorant.

Again, I strongly encourage every doubter on this thread to give the movie a watch. It is a fantastic film regardless, and it's ridiculous that it was snubbed so by the Oscars.

That doesn't change that Davidson significantly retracted from the moments of others. He had the right to be at the awards to a certain point but had the obligation to remove himself if he was going to make it impossible for the show to continue and it would have gotten to that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

He didn't *intend* to cause harm. However, we now believe words cause physical harm and intent no longer matters. Outcomes are all that is important.

How do words cause physical harm?

[Anonymous]

Say if his tic was punching? And he punches someone and breaks their nose. Does the lack of intent make it less broken ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

He didn't *intend* to cause harm. However, we now believe words cause physical harm and intent no longer matters. Outcomes are all that is important.

So how do we hold those with dementia responsible for the harm they cause? How do we hold those with severe autism responsible for the harm they cause?

They get drugged or removed from their care facility. You know that medical professionals don’t have to put up with you hurling racists slurs no matter your medical condition, right? Same with violence. It’s drugs or your care can end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The look on delroy lindos face broke my heart.

No, his and all black actors right to not have the n word yelled at them in the workplace is not secondary to other people.

I am sure that a prestigious event like the BAFTAs have VIP suites that the BBC could have invited John Davidson to watch the event in. I am sure that he would much prefer being in a safe space where he can relax and not have to be mindful about the possibility of outbursts. He could have been paired with his own family and the I Swear cast/crew.

+1

[Anonymous]

Is the word even prominent or even used in Scotland?
How does this guy know it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 3 people who were on the receiving end have the right to be offended and upset. They also have the right to be in a safe environment and anticipate or be called a nasty word by anyone. It would have been right to apologize to them directly. If you can apologize when yout child hits someone or you cause an accident someone could have and should have apologized direcrly to those on the receiving end.

We do not have the right to tell them how to feel or to explain it away or get over it or blame it on a condition.

Cutting references to trump, palestine and andrew but leaving that in was a huge mistake.

To say the word he knew the word and who to direct it to. He didnt say it to everyone he encountered or saw.

Sorry if you feel offended is not a proper apology.

Should he have been there? Maybe for a moment when his movie was being acknowledged, but sitting through a long ceremony was the wrong decision. There's a reason you dont being a baby to the opera.

Also, illnesses and conditions do not absolve a person of having certain thoughts and feelings Consci.\nOusly subconsciouslyWe don't know this man's deepest thoughts and feelings.No matter who knows him and swears by him period only he does.

I don't understand the point of this statement. Of course he did. People with Tourette's are not stupid. But it's entirely beside the point - a symptom of his condition is involuntarily blurting out obscene or derogatory insults.

He didnt say it to every person in the place. He said it to black people when he saw them. He didn't say any other slurs to any other group of people there. someone said he did curse when a woman was speaking, but he didn't call her a a name. He didn't refer to any other religion or gender or group by any other slur. Whether he meant to or could control it it is one thing but he knew the word and who to direct it to and they had the right to not be on the receiving end of that and others not to hear it.

DP: You seem to be deliberately choosing not to understand this disability.

DP: While you seem to be deliberately choosing not to understand that adult behavior requires responsibility for the impacts of your actions on others — even when those actions are involuntary.

Since his existence as an individual with Tourette in your view is harmful - he has outbursts many times a day - how should he take responsibility for existing? Should he be institutionalized and kept in isolation to prevent futher harm that you feel he is responsible for? What is the point in apologizing when he can't control it and it can happen again in 5 minutes or 10 minutes or 20 minutes? How can an apology be seen as meaningful when it doesn't change anything about his disability or the copralalia? How can he take responsibility for something he can't control? He can't control who will understand he has a disability and who won't and will be angry and feel harmed by him. He can't anticipate harm as many people do understand and won't be harmed.

Nope. “His existence as an individual with Tourette’s” is NOT “harmful “ in my view. The content of several of his outbursts was.
He can anticipate that some of his outburst may hurt some of the people who hear them. Again, he’s an adult who advocates for inclusion for people like him who have Tourette’s. He is capable of making a meaningful apology to people that have been impacted by his behavior — and, IMO, he should do so.