Bafta awards controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The Tourettes cases involve customer facing roles and the 3rd one was about a different disorder. Sounds like if they weren’t customer facing it would have been different.

Nope. “ … that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."

Take action? Like what?

Do you not work?

Do you? Because you don't automatically get fired. So what "action" are you hoping for? They can alter shifts, move you to a less customer facing role, change your work location but they don't just fire you.

Until they have to... just like in the Coca-Cola case a PP posted.

They didn't fire him. He quit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The Tourettes cases involve customer facing roles and the 3rd one was about a different disorder. Sounds like if they weren’t customer facing it would have been different.

You think a coworker should be allowed to shout racial slurs at you and you just have to sit there because they have a disability? No way.

Did you read it at all? The cases centered around not being able to perform a key component of the job which was customer interactions. It was very specific.

NP, but the question is what constitutes a key component of a job. It's not a stretch to say that being able to work with a colleague without hurling insults at them would be a key component of ANY job. In fact, I can't imagine a court would give an individual the right to harass another, even with a medical condition.

Ok, but the cases cited weren't about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If you have to compare a disabled adult to an infant to defend their decision to remain in a public place when they want to scream the n-word, you are ableist yourself.

He felt he had the right to stay no matter what came out of his mouth. Make of that what you will. But don’t compare it to an infant with indigestion.

Both might intend no harm, but one is fully aware he might cause it and decides it’s worth the risk.

Psychiatrist here-you are completely wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The Tourettes cases involve customer facing roles and the 3rd one was about a different disorder. Sounds like if they weren’t customer facing it would have been different.

You think a coworker should be allowed to shout racial slurs at you and you just have to sit there because they have a disability? No way.

Did you read it at all? The cases centered around not being able to perform a key component of the job which was customer interactions. It was very specific.

NP, but the question is what constitutes a key component of a job. It's not a stretch to say that being able to work with a colleague without hurling insults at them would be a key component of ANY job. In fact, I can't imagine a court would give an individual the right to harass another, even with a medical condition.

Except they aren't hurling insults or harrassing anyone. They have a medical condition that leads to involuntary vocalizations and movements. Most people once educated can work with these colleagues and realize it is an involuntary symptom of a medical condition and not an insult or harrassment. I worked with someone who had CP and when he talked it took considerable effort and there was often spittle that came out and sometimes would get on you if you were too close. It wasn't hard for me to understand this as an involuntary part of his medical condition rather than seeing him as a coworker just spitting on me with full control and intention. The impact might be the same in that in both cases I have spit on me and it is gross but as a competent, compassionate adult, I am able to differentiate between the two situations and accept that he can't control it. I didn't require a meaningful heartfelt apology (or any apology) from him each time he spoke and spittle came out, nor did I hold him responsible or expect him to isolate himself from others or expect my employer to fire him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "apology" is terrible, just awful. Not a single word recognizing the impact of his actions. Just more plugging of his own project.

I am far less sympathetic after this statement than I was before it, to be honest. How hard would it be to acknowledge harm, if you are writing a statement anyway?

https://variety.com/2026/film/awards/i-swear-john-davidson-deeply-mortified-shouting-n-word-baftas-1236670082/

I'm trying to be understanding but, yes, this is a pretty poor apology. I am learning that people with Tourettes don't think they should have to apologize for who they are (and I agree to an extent), but they shouldn't ignore the potential harm their tics could cause others. Davidson didn't even acknowledge the specific harm that word in that setting would cause the Black folks on the receiving end.

When you have this condition for years and years and so this is an hourly / frequent occurance for you, it is different from someone hearing for the first time. It is just the norm for the person with the disability. I worked in a setting with people who had OCD and Tourette's that were so severe that they were hospitalized. Their rituals and outbursts often didn't even regster with them due to the frequency and severity - other than they were exhausted and frustrated. Since they are not controllable - they aren't doig a deep dive into the impact of something they can't control. For some of them the rituals or outbursts were multiple times a minute, over and over and over - thousands of times a day. There isn't a conscious reflective thought process that reflects and dissects each ritual or outburst and its impact as it is just part of their life and a part that brings them so much struggle and pain.

This was obviously a different setting but over time I am sure he gets somewhat numb to the impact and has to just carry on as he likely has frequent tics and vocalizations and can't stop his life and what he is going a hundred times a day to do a reflection and to find those he has caused an impact to and to try to see what they need from him to resolve any harm they felt. He likely gets looks and comments of disgust all day every day - it is just part of his existance.

I get that and I'm not referring to normal daily interactions. I imagine having this condition is beyond exhausting and reading accounts from people with Tourettes is saddening. But, making this statement, after an international incident like what we're discussing, that was presumably crafted and vetted by his team and the movie studio should have been a little more emphatic and less self- promotional.

+1 Davidson is asking for a lot of grace, while extending none. For a statement that I assume was run through at least one PR professional, it's remarkably lacking in depth or understanding of the impact of his actions.

Actions need to be under control. Vocalizations and tics are not considered actions. There is no aim or goal, they are involuntary and not under the control of the individual.

Wow. You are just determined to insist that persons with disabilities have no agency whatsoever, and no responsibility to live in a society. Even if you thought that, for PR reasons you should want this apology to be better because this is how millions of people around the world are learning about vocal tics, and if the message they take away is "racial slurs need no apology," then G-d knows where we'll end up.

No, I just understand the difference between intentional / unintentional, involuntary / voluntary, controlled / uncontrolled. He did not make a racial slur - he had an involuntary vocal tic of word that can also be used and intended as a racial slur.

So, your argument is that he happened to make a sound "that can be used and intended as a racial slur" three times and only at Black folks, but we should not call it a slur because it only CAN be used as a slur?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The Tourettes cases involve customer facing roles and the 3rd one was about a different disorder. Sounds like if they weren’t customer facing it would have been different.

You think a coworker should be allowed to shout racial slurs at you and you just have to sit there because they have a disability? No way.

Did you read it at all? The cases centered around not being able to perform a key component of the job which was customer interactions. It was very specific.

NP, but the question is what constitutes a key component of a job. It's not a stretch to say that being able to work with a colleague without hurling insults at them would be a key component of ANY job. In fact, I can't imagine a court would give an individual the right to harass another, even with a medical condition.

Except they aren't hurling insults or harrassing anyone. They have a medical condition that leads to involuntary vocalizations and movements. Most people once educated can work with these colleagues and realize it is an involuntary symptom of a medical condition and not an insult or harrassment. I worked with someone who had CP and when he talked it took considerable effort and there was often spittle that came out and sometimes would get on you if you were too close. It wasn't hard for me to understand this as an involuntary part of his medical condition rather than seeing him as a coworker just spitting on me with full control and intention. The impact might be the same in that in both cases I have spit on me and it is gross but as a competent, compassionate adult, I am able to differentiate between the two situations and accept that he can't control it. I didn't require a meaningful heartfelt apology (or any apology) from him each time he spoke and spittle came out, nor did I hold him responsible or expect him to isolate himself from others or expect my employer to fire him.

So please be very clear. Your position is that a black person should be required to hear the N word repeatedly at work because of someone else's medical condition? AND it would be a lack of competence and compassion if they are unable to tolerate that environment?

Feel free to replace that example with a woman hearing the C word, gay man hearing the F word, lesbian hearing the D word, and any other group that has an associated slur.

[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.

Nope, you’re not the only one on this thread. It’s been educational and a bit eye opening to see how many people here will twist themselves in knots to argue that an adult man with a disability — who advocates for the inclusion of people who have his disability — should get a pass on on the impact that his behaviors may have on others. I agree with most of what you’ve said — although I think it’s less than 100% on BAFTA. IMO, Davidson should make a real and public apology — or recognize that his failure to do so will limit his ability to be included in at least some settings. I do find it startling that no one at BAFTA has had the sense to at least craft an appropriate apology that addresses the genuine damage that Davidson’s behavior has caused — damage that ripples out from the people that he hurt directly, to people in the audiences for the program, to the leadership at BAFTA, which has handled this exceptionally poorly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The Tourettes cases involve customer facing roles and the 3rd one was about a different disorder. Sounds like if they weren’t customer facing it would have been different.

Nope. “ … that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."

Take action? Like what?

Do you not work?

Do you? Because you don't automatically get fired. So what "action" are you hoping for? They can alter shifts, move you to a less customer facing role, change your work location but they don't just fire you.

So you were just asking rhetorical questions for???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "apology" is terrible, just awful. Not a single word recognizing the impact of his actions. Just more plugging of his own project.

I am far less sympathetic after this statement than I was before it, to be honest. How hard would it be to acknowledge harm, if you are writing a statement anyway?

https://variety.com/2026/film/awards/i-swear-john-davidson-deeply-mortified-shouting-n-word-baftas-1236670082/

I'm trying to be understanding but, yes, this is a pretty poor apology. I am learning that people with Tourettes don't think they should have to apologize for who they are (and I agree to an extent), but they shouldn't ignore the potential harm their tics could cause others. Davidson didn't even acknowledge the specific harm that word in that setting would cause the Black folks on the receiving end.

When you have this condition for years and years and so this is an hourly / frequent occurance for you, it is different from someone hearing for the first time. It is just the norm for the person with the disability. I worked in a setting with people who had OCD and Tourette's that were so severe that they were hospitalized. Their rituals and outbursts often didn't even regster with them due to the frequency and severity - other than they were exhausted and frustrated. Since they are not controllable - they aren't doig a deep dive into the impact of something they can't control. For some of them the rituals or outbursts were multiple times a minute, over and over and over - thousands of times a day. There isn't a conscious reflective thought process that reflects and dissects each ritual or outburst and its impact as it is just part of their life and a part that brings them so much struggle and pain.

This was obviously a different setting but over time I am sure he gets somewhat numb to the impact and has to just carry on as he likely has frequent tics and vocalizations and can't stop his life and what he is going a hundred times a day to do a reflection and to find those he has caused an impact to and to try to see what they need from him to resolve any harm they felt. He likely gets looks and comments of disgust all day every day - it is just part of his existance.

I get that and I'm not referring to normal daily interactions. I imagine having this condition is beyond exhausting and reading accounts from people with Tourettes is saddening. But, making this statement, after an international incident like what we're discussing, that was presumably crafted and vetted by his team and the movie studio should have been a little more emphatic and less self- promotional.

I think the apology / statement should have come from those who invited him knowing he had copralalia and those who broadcast it knowing he had copralalia. I don't think he (the individual) owes anyone an apology for having copralalia at an event where he was there for a film on copralalia.

No, he himself also owes sincere apologies. That’s part of being in society. And based on a clip posted by a PP, he’s clearly capable of apologizing for what he does (says).

I disagree. They shouldn't have invited him if the goal was to humiliate him and make a spectable of him and his disability. He was only there because he has copralalia so to say he needs to apologize for it just doesn't make sense to me. You don't invite someone to an event because they have copralalia and then humiliate and create global hatred towards them for the exact reason you invited them. Maybe they didn't anticipate the so many people weren't aware of copralalia and see it as racist acts he is personally responsible for but either way, he went there thinking he was being celebrated due to his movie and now the very thing the movie was about has led to him being vilified and hated and judged and labeled a racist.

Well thank you for making the succinct case that people with copralalia should not be in public. Bravo!

[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.

Nope, you’re not the only one on this thread. It’s been educational and a bit eye opening to see how many people here will twist themselves in knots to argue that an adult man with a disability — who advocates for the inclusion of people who have his disability — should get a pass on on the impact that his behaviors may have on others. I agree with most of what you’ve said — although I think it’s less than 100% on BAFTA. IMO, Davidson should make a real and public apology — or recognize that his failure to do so will limit his ability to be included in at least some settings. I do find it startling that no one at BAFTA has had the sense to at least craft an appropriate apology that addresses the genuine damage that Davidson’s behavior has caused — damage that ripples out from the people that he hurt directly, to people in the audiences for the program, to the leadership at BAFTA, which has handled this exceptionally poorly.

+ 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "apology" is terrible, just awful. Not a single word recognizing the impact of his actions. Just more plugging of his own project.

I am far less sympathetic after this statement than I was before it, to be honest. How hard would it be to acknowledge harm, if you are writing a statement anyway?

https://variety.com/2026/film/awards/i-swear-john-davidson-deeply-mortified-shouting-n-word-baftas-1236670082/

I'm trying to be understanding but, yes, this is a pretty poor apology. I am learning that people with Tourettes don't think they should have to apologize for who they are (and I agree to an extent), but they shouldn't ignore the potential harm their tics could cause others. Davidson didn't even acknowledge the specific harm that word in that setting would cause the Black folks on the receiving end.

When you have this condition for years and years and so this is an hourly / frequent occurance for you, it is different from someone hearing for the first time. It is just the norm for the person with the disability. I worked in a setting with people who had OCD and Tourette's that were so severe that they were hospitalized. Their rituals and outbursts often didn't even regster with them due to the frequency and severity - other than they were exhausted and frustrated. Since they are not controllable - they aren't doig a deep dive into the impact of something they can't control. For some of them the rituals or outbursts were multiple times a minute, over and over and over - thousands of times a day. There isn't a conscious reflective thought process that reflects and dissects each ritual or outburst and its impact as it is just part of their life and a part that brings them so much struggle and pain.

This was obviously a different setting but over time I am sure he gets somewhat numb to the impact and has to just carry on as he likely has frequent tics and vocalizations and can't stop his life and what he is going a hundred times a day to do a reflection and to find those he has caused an impact to and to try to see what they need from him to resolve any harm they felt. He likely gets looks and comments of disgust all day every day - it is just part of his existance.

I get that and I'm not referring to normal daily interactions. I imagine having this condition is beyond exhausting and reading accounts from people with Tourettes is saddening. But, making this statement, after an international incident like what we're discussing, that was presumably crafted and vetted by his team and the movie studio should have been a little more emphatic and less self- promotional.

+1 Davidson is asking for a lot of grace, while extending none. For a statement that I assume was run through at least one PR professional, it's remarkably lacking in depth or understanding of the impact of his actions.

Actions need to be under control. Vocalizations and tics are not considered actions. There is no aim or goal, they are involuntary and not under the control of the individual.

Wow. You are just determined to insist that persons with disabilities have no agency whatsoever, and no responsibility to live in a society. Even if you thought that, for PR reasons you should want this apology to be better because this is how millions of people around the world are learning about vocal tics, and if the message they take away is "racial slurs need no apology," then G-d knows where we'll end up.

No, I just understand the difference between intentional / unintentional, involuntary / voluntary, controlled / uncontrolled. He did not make a racial slur - he had an involuntary vocal tic of word that can also be used and intended as a racial slur.

And if he can’t or won’t recognize what that involuntary vocal tic might give rise to outside of extremely sheltered social settings, then his medical team needs to update their treatment goals. DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "apology" is terrible, just awful. Not a single word recognizing the impact of his actions. Just more plugging of his own project.

I am far less sympathetic after this statement than I was before it, to be honest. How hard would it be to acknowledge harm, if you are writing a statement anyway?

https://variety.com/2026/film/awards/i-swear-john-davidson-deeply-mortified-shouting-n-word-baftas-1236670082/

I'm trying to be understanding but, yes, this is a pretty poor apology. I am learning that people with Tourettes don't think they should have to apologize for who they are (and I agree to an extent), but they shouldn't ignore the potential harm their tics could cause others. Davidson didn't even acknowledge the specific harm that word in that setting would cause the Black folks on the receiving end.

When you have this condition for years and years and so this is an hourly / frequent occurance for you, it is different from someone hearing for the first time. It is just the norm for the person with the disability. I worked in a setting with people who had OCD and Tourette's that were so severe that they were hospitalized. Their rituals and outbursts often didn't even regster with them due to the frequency and severity - other than they were exhausted and frustrated. Since they are not controllable - they aren't doig a deep dive into the impact of something they can't control. For some of them the rituals or outbursts were multiple times a minute, over and over and over - thousands of times a day. There isn't a conscious reflective thought process that reflects and dissects each ritual or outburst and its impact as it is just part of their life and a part that brings them so much struggle and pain.

This was obviously a different setting but over time I am sure he gets somewhat numb to the impact and has to just carry on as he likely has frequent tics and vocalizations and can't stop his life and what he is going a hundred times a day to do a reflection and to find those he has caused an impact to and to try to see what they need from him to resolve any harm they felt. He likely gets looks and comments of disgust all day every day - it is just part of his existance.

I get that and I'm not referring to normal daily interactions. I imagine having this condition is beyond exhausting and reading accounts from people with Tourettes is saddening. But, making this statement, after an international incident like what we're discussing, that was presumably crafted and vetted by his team and the movie studio should have been a little more emphatic and less self- promotional.

+1 Davidson is asking for a lot of grace, while extending none. For a statement that I assume was run through at least one PR professional, it's remarkably lacking in depth or understanding of the impact of his actions.

Actions need to be under control. Vocalizations and tics are not considered actions. There is no aim or goal, they are involuntary and not under the control of the individual.

Wow. You are just determined to insist that persons with disabilities have no agency whatsoever, and no responsibility to live in a society. Even if you thought that, for PR reasons you should want this apology to be better because this is how millions of people around the world are learning about vocal tics, and if the message they take away is "racial slurs need no apology," then G-d knows where we'll end up.

No, I just understand the difference between intentional / unintentional, involuntary / voluntary, controlled / uncontrolled. He did not make a racial slur - he had an involuntary vocal tic of word that can also be used and intended as a racial slur.

So, your argument is that he happened to make a sound "that can be used and intended as a racial slur" three times and only at Black folks, but we should not call it a slur because it only CAN be used as a slur?

That is right. The sound can be made and the word can be said without it being a slur. If two black people say it to each other, it can be understand as something other than a racial slur, if a Japanese person says 那个 which sounds the same, it can be understood as something other than a racial slur, and if a person with involuntary vocal ticks says it as part of their disability, it can be understood as something other than a racial slur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The Tourettes cases involve customer facing roles and the 3rd one was about a different disorder. Sounds like if they weren’t customer facing it would have been different.

Nope. “ … that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."

Take action? Like what?

Do you not work?

Do you? Because you don't automatically get fired. So what "action" are you hoping for? They can alter shifts, move you to a less customer facing role, change your work location but they don't just fire you.

So you were just asking rhetorical questions for???

Because the legal cases don't say what you think they say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "apology" is terrible, just awful. Not a single word recognizing the impact of his actions. Just more plugging of his own project.

I am far less sympathetic after this statement than I was before it, to be honest. How hard would it be to acknowledge harm, if you are writing a statement anyway?

https://variety.com/2026/film/awards/i-swear-john-davidson-deeply-mortified-shouting-n-word-baftas-1236670082/

I'm trying to be understanding but, yes, this is a pretty poor apology. I am learning that people with Tourettes don't think they should have to apologize for who they are (and I agree to an extent), but they shouldn't ignore the potential harm their tics could cause others. Davidson didn't even acknowledge the specific harm that word in that setting would cause the Black folks on the receiving end.

When you have this condition for years and years and so this is an hourly / frequent occurance for you, it is different from someone hearing for the first time. It is just the norm for the person with the disability. I worked in a setting with people who had OCD and Tourette's that were so severe that they were hospitalized. Their rituals and outbursts often didn't even regster with them due to the frequency and severity - other than they were exhausted and frustrated. Since they are not controllable - they aren't doig a deep dive into the impact of something they can't control. For some of them the rituals or outbursts were multiple times a minute, over and over and over - thousands of times a day. There isn't a conscious reflective thought process that reflects and dissects each ritual or outburst and its impact as it is just part of their life and a part that brings them so much struggle and pain.

This was obviously a different setting but over time I am sure he gets somewhat numb to the impact and has to just carry on as he likely has frequent tics and vocalizations and can't stop his life and what he is going a hundred times a day to do a reflection and to find those he has caused an impact to and to try to see what they need from him to resolve any harm they felt. He likely gets looks and comments of disgust all day every day - it is just part of his existance.

I get that and I'm not referring to normal daily interactions. I imagine having this condition is beyond exhausting and reading accounts from people with Tourettes is saddening. But, making this statement, after an international incident like what we're discussing, that was presumably crafted and vetted by his team and the movie studio should have been a little more emphatic and less self- promotional.

+1 Davidson is asking for a lot of grace, while extending none. For a statement that I assume was run through at least one PR professional, it's remarkably lacking in depth or understanding of the impact of his actions.

Actions need to be under control. Vocalizations and tics are not considered actions. There is no aim or goal, they are involuntary and not under the control of the individual.

Wow. You are just determined to insist that persons with disabilities have no agency whatsoever, and no responsibility to live in a society. Even if you thought that, for PR reasons you should want this apology to be better because this is how millions of people around the world are learning about vocal tics, and if the message they take away is "racial slurs need no apology," then G-d knows where we'll end up.

No, I just understand the difference between intentional / unintentional, involuntary / voluntary, controlled / uncontrolled. He did not make a racial slur - he had an involuntary vocal tic of word that can also be used and intended as a racial slur.

So, your argument is that he happened to make a sound "that can be used and intended as a racial slur" three times and only at Black folks, but we should not call it a slur because it only CAN be used as a slur?

That is right. The sound can be made and the word can be said without it being a slur. If two black people say it to each other, it can be understand as something other than a racial slur, if a Japanese person says 那个 which sounds the same, it can be understood as something other than a racial slur, and if a person with involuntary vocal ticks says it as part of their disability, it can be understood as something other than a racial slur.

LOL. This is hilarious. He used it when Black men were onstage, when a Black woman walked by on the red carpet, and when Black folks were honored at the dinner, but it is "something other than a racial slur."

Sure. Sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If a narcoleptic or someone with a seizure disorder drives and causes an accident, should they be held responsible? If highly functioning autistic man makes gross sexual comments to a female coworker, should that just be ok?

There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.

This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. They are protected under the ADA. Through education, awareness, getting to know their colleague, accommodations, and getting used to it - it isn't a major issue for most. I am sure some people still don't feel people with Tourette's should be allowed in the workplace but those views would be seen as prejudiced and any action to fire them for their disability would be discrimination.

No, the ADA doesn’t protect your ability to curse and scream the N word.

https://www.bradley.com/insights/publications/2024/02/curse-words-and-customer-servicesixth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-tourette-syndrome-ada-claim

Here’s a case where an employee sued her employer after being subjected to racist comments from a coworker. The court said “… that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/employer-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place

Here’s another one: https://www.studicata.com/summaries/united-states-district-court-southern-district-of-georgia/ray-v-kroger-company-2003-i62thm/

Here’s a case about a different type of disability: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/14-2495/14-2495-2015-03-09.pdf?ts=1425913281

The Tourettes cases involve customer facing roles and the 3rd one was about a different disorder. Sounds like if they weren’t customer facing it would have been different.

Nope. “ … that an employer can lawfully take action against an employee with Tourette syndrome if "the disability-caused behavior is disruptive to co-workers."

Take action? Like what?

Do you not work?

Do you? Because you don't automatically get fired. So what "action" are you hoping for? They can alter shifts, move you to a less customer facing role, change your work location but they don't just fire you.

So you were just asking rhetorical questions for???

Because the legal cases don't say what you think they say.

They do. And good luck getting a court in the US to say otherwise in your lifetime.