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: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.

I am an adult who became disabled at middle age. I would not want a psychiatrist who infantilized adults with disabilities.

Does this guy have a disability or not? If people think he can and should control and make apologies for it, it then it sounds like they don't believe his disability is real.

That is the clear divide, in this thread and online. Some see TS and Copralalia as a disability and the outbursts as involuntary and some just see the man as a vile racist human who chose to say what he said when he said it. People who don't think it came from a disability want him to control himself and apologize and remove himself going forward from public places since he won't commit to never having an outburst again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could some with this particular form of TS become a news anchor? A kindergarten teacher?

Of course they could. Trump is worse than this and he’s the US President.

[Anonymous]

He should have stayed home.

[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: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.

I am an adult who became disabled at middle age. I would not want a psychiatrist who infantilized adults with disabilities.

Does this guy have a disability or not? If people think he can and should control and make apologies for it, it then it sounds like they don't believe his disability is real.

That is the clear divide, in this thread and online. Some see TS and Copralalia as a disability and the outbursts as involuntary and some just see the man as a vile racist human who chose to say what he said when he said it. People who don't think it came from a disability want him to control himself and apologize and remove himself going forward from public places since he won't commit to never having an outburst again.

No, you are missing what most posters are saying. Just because you have a disability you don't have the right to spoil an awards ceremony by shouting vile things repeatedly. In that situation if you can't control yourself you don't attend. And you should apologize if you cause a scene. It is just basic decency.

He is actually making it harder for the vast majority of people with Tourettes who don't engage in this offensive behavior because now people are thinking everyone with Tourette's has the possibility to yell out offensive things.

[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: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.

I am an adult who became disabled at middle age. I would not want a psychiatrist who infantilized adults with disabilities.

Does this guy have a disability or not? If people think he can and should control and make apologies for it, it then it sounds like they don't believe his disability is real.

That is the clear divide, in this thread and online. Some see TS and Copralalia as a disability and the outbursts as involuntary and some just see the man as a vile racist human who chose to say what he said when he said it. People who don't think it came from a disability want him to control himself and apologize and remove himself going forward from public places since he won't commit to never having an outburst again.

No, you are missing what most posters are saying. Just because you have a disability you don't have the right to spoil an awards ceremony by shouting vile things repeatedly. In that situation if you can't control yourself you don't attend. And you should apologize if you cause a scene. It is just basic decency.

He is actually making it harder for the vast majority of people with Tourettes who don't engage in this offensive behavior because now people are thinking everyone with Tourette's has the possibility to yell out offensive things.

It's really just this simple

[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: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.

I am an adult who became disabled at middle age. I would not want a psychiatrist who infantilized adults with disabilities.

Does this guy have a disability or not? If people think he can and should control and make apologies for it, it then it sounds like they don't believe his disability is real.

That is the clear divide, in this thread and online. Some see TS and Copralalia as a disability and the outbursts as involuntary and some just see the man as a vile racist human who chose to say what he said when he said it. People who don't think it came from a disability want him to control himself and apologize and remove himself going forward from public places since he won't commit to never having an outburst again.

No, you are missing what most posters are saying. Just because you have a disability you don't have the right to spoil an awards ceremony by shouting vile things repeatedly. In that situation if you can't control yourself you don't attend. And you should apologize if you cause a scene. It is just basic decency.

He is actually making it harder for the vast majority of people with Tourettes who don't engage in this offensive behavior because now people are thinking everyone with Tourette's has the possibility to yell out offensive things.

About 10-15% of people with Tourettes have Coprolalia and yes they all yell out things that people will find inappropriate or offensive. By definition the condition of coprolalia involves vocalizing obscene and socially inappropriate thoughts. That is what the condition is. It is not a personal choice to engage in offensive behaviour. It is not about will he or wont he control himself.

And he was invited because one of the main pictures was the movie about his life. There was a segment at the beginning of the show where he was introduced to the audience and received a loud round of applause. Clearly the view of those organizing the BAFTAs was that he should be allowed to attend despite having a disability that involved yelling out obscene and socially inappropriate words - clearly that is not the view of many who are watching this or reading aboutit afterwords. Since the movie includes the same condition and was about his life - they clearly didn't think he should be excluded.

[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: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.

I am an adult who became disabled at middle age. I would not want a psychiatrist who infantilized adults with disabilities.

Does this guy have a disability or not? If people think he can and should control and make apologies for it, it then it sounds like they don't believe his disability is real.

That is the clear divide, in this thread and online. Some see TS and Copralalia as a disability and the outbursts as involuntary and some just see the man as a vile racist human who chose to say what he said when he said it. People who don't think it came from a disability want him to control himself and apologize and remove himself going forward from public places since he won't commit to never having an outburst again.

No, you are missing what most posters are saying. Just because you have a disability you don't have the right to spoil an awards ceremony by shouting vile things repeatedly. In that situation if you can't control yourself you don't attend. And you should apologize if you cause a scene. It is just basic decency.

He is actually making it harder for the vast majority of people with Tourettes who don't engage in this offensive behavior because now people are thinking everyone with Tourette's has the possibility to yell out offensive things.

It's really just this simple

The debate is not about whether or not he should have been invited it's about whether the BBC should have edited out. Nobody is saying he shouldn't have been there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're saying you don't understand the meaning of the word involuntary?

I think what everyone is hung up on is that this word had to have been in his thoughts. Seems stretchy to me.

So nobody can suggest someone like that should not attend golf tennis or chess matches?

I will suggest it. If they can't be counted on to control their tics to the point it can become a disturbance to those involved, then of course they should not attend.

but would that not be ableism? And apparently that’s worse than racism

Not sure if it is ableism. Don't really care.

Got it. You only care about the things you think are worth caring about. Definition of white progressives.

[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: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.

I am an adult who became disabled at middle age. I would not want a psychiatrist who infantilized adults with disabilities.

Does this guy have a disability or not? If people think he can and should control and make apologies for it, it then it sounds like they don't believe his disability is real.

That is the clear divide, in this thread and online. Some see TS and Copralalia as a disability and the outbursts as involuntary and some just see the man as a vile racist human who chose to say what he said when he said it. People who don't think it came from a disability want him to control himself and apologize and remove himself going forward from public places since he won't commit to never having an outburst again.

No, you are missing what most posters are saying. Just because you have a disability you don't have the right to spoil an awards ceremony by shouting vile things repeatedly. In that situation if you can't control yourself you don't attend. And you should apologize if you cause a scene. It is just basic decency.

He is actually making it harder for the vast majority of people with Tourettes who don't engage in this offensive behavior because now people are thinking everyone with Tourette's has the possibility to yell out offensive things.

The disability IS shouting vile things repeatedly. It isn't about giving rights to anything. That is what the disability is.

Just like if a disability is blindness you can't say well just because you have a disability it doesn't give you the right to not see where you are going.

Or if it is deafness - would you say well just because you have a disability it doesn't give you the right to not listen to me and do what I say.

Because that is what you are saying about this disability - that having it doesn't give you the right to have the specific impairments that define the disability.

[Anonymous]

A disability doesn’t give unlimited rights to interrupt other people’s events. Bafta was for many artists as a public setting. The guy had already been yelling slurs at attendees. He should have removed himself much earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are people who say that word to black men all the time, and it isn't a slur. We are told all the time that it's different because of who is saying it - which is *precisely* the point here.

[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 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.

I am an adult who became disabled at middle age. I would not want a psychiatrist who infantilized adults with disabilities.

Does this guy have a disability or not? If people think he can and should control and make apologies for it, it then it sounds like they don't believe his disability is real.

That is the clear divide, in this thread and online. Some see TS and Copralalia as a disability and the outbursts as involuntary and some just see the man as a vile racist human who chose to say what he said when he said it. People who don't think it came from a disability want him to control himself and apologize and remove himself going forward from public places since he won't commit to never having an outburst again.

No, you are missing what most posters are saying. Just because you have a disability you don't have the right to spoil an awards ceremony by shouting vile things repeatedly. In that situation if you can't control yourself you don't attend. And you should apologize if you cause a scene. It is just basic decency.

He is actually making it harder for the vast majority of people with Tourettes who don't engage in this offensive behavior because now people are thinking everyone with Tourette's has the possibility to yell out offensive things.

It's really just this simple

The debate is not about whether or not he should have been invited it's about whether the BBC should have edited out. Nobody is saying he shouldn't have been there.

Plenty of people on this thread are saying just that. Check out three posts after yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're saying you don't understand the meaning of the word involuntary?

I think what everyone is hung up on is that this word had to have been in his thoughts. Seems stretchy to me.

So nobody can suggest someone like that should not attend golf tennis or chess matches?

I will suggest it. If they can't be counted on to control their tics to the point it can become a disturbance to those involved, then of course they should not attend.

but would that not be ableism? And apparently that’s worse than racism

Not sure if it is ableism. Don't really care.

Got it. You only care about the things you think are worth caring about. Definition of white progressives.

Lol. Justifying his behavior is the definition of white progressiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're saying you don't understand the meaning of the word involuntary?

I think what everyone is hung up on is that this word had to have been in his thoughts. Seems stretchy to me.

So nobody can suggest someone like that should not attend golf tennis or chess matches?

I will suggest it. If they can't be counted on to control their tics to the point it can become a disturbance to those involved, then of course they should not attend.

but would that not be ableism? And apparently that’s worse than racism

Not sure if it is ableism. Don't really care.

Got it. You only care about the things you think are worth caring about. Definition of white progressives.

Lol. Justifying his behavior is the definition of white progressiveness.

But it's not behavior. It's an involuntary tic.

[Anonymous]

So how do we enforce to people with disabilities that they do not have the right to have the impairments of those disabilities.
How do we tell the blind person they do not have a right to not look where they are going?
How do we tell the deaf person that they do not have a right to not listen and respond?
How do we tell the non verbal child with autism that they do not have a right to not speak?
How do we tell the person with coprolalia that they do not have a right to have vocalizations?

For all of you phrasing this in 'rights' language and how he didn't have the right to have a vile outburst - how do we tell people their disability does not give them any right to have any impairments that define the disability?

Should they all be punished? A friend of mine is deaf and was in a situation where a police officer approached her from behind while she was walking and asked her to stop (apparently multiple times). She didn't hear it as she was deaf and the cop ended up tackling her and then wanting to charge with her refusal to obey orders and resisting. Do you feel that is fair as her disability does not give her the right to not listen to the cop and do what he tells her? That she doesn't get to not follow the laws and blame it on her disability? That she should have been apologizing profusely to the cop for not doing as she was asked? That he would have been right to arrest and charge her as her disability isn't an excuse or a cop out for bad behaviour?