Bafta awards controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't you seen the videos of people post anesthesia who say offensive things? Are people really triggered and offended by those vidoes and expect apologies? Usually the people in them are laughing and not taking it personally as they understand what the person coming out of anesthesia is saying is not under their control. But most people on here seem to think those people are extremely offensive and should be apologizing for their comments and that being under sanesthetic does not give them a right to say anything inappropriate and they need to be held responsible.

I think people are used to being able to reflexively demand other people apologize. They are frustrated that it doesn't seem to work in this case.

Well, there are other options. Apologies are designed to indicate to people who you’ve hurt in some way that your intention was not to hurt them. Most sincere apologies are met with forgiveness. Without an apology, the consequences for many behaviors are likely to be very different. So, are those of you who don’t believe that apologies are necessary advocating for the kinds of consequences that saying offensive things to people you don’t know will often provoke? If so, you probably don’t have Davidson’s long term best interests at heart.

There are people of all ages and races with coprolalia and I think the view that they owe an apology to anyone who is offended by any of their tics puts a massive burden on them. Many people tic very frequently and continuously being asked to come up with an apology for any offense each tic may have caused or offense taken by those who don't understand may not even be practically feasible.

OK, but surely we can distinguish between ticcing while out to lunch or ticcing while running errands and ticcing , in an otherwise silent large auditorium, while someone is making their televised acceptance speech for a major award. I agree that they don't need to be a constant walking apology, but some situations are different from some others.

Also, I think it's actually kind of dangerous to try to run with the idea that someone with coprolalia doesn't need to feel they owe an apology to anyone, because people need to learn what their disability is and they need to remember to be inclusive. Because people can't even learn what something as common as autism is a good chunk of the time. If someone with coprolalia is taught that it's completely ok to go out in public and not apologize for having tics when they occur, they're going to get harassed, assaulted, or even shot. I'm not saying that is ok, but if someone with this gets onto a bus and sits down and starts with a loud vocal tic of "N WORD, N WORD N WORD" while looking at a bus full of Black people, they can't honestly expect that everyone's just going to take it in stride and continue to peacefully ride the bus together. It's dangerous to set that expectation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't you seen the videos of people post anesthesia who say offensive things? Are people really triggered and offended by those vidoes and expect apologies? Usually the people in them are laughing and not taking it personally as they understand what the person coming out of anesthesia is saying is not under their control. But most people on here seem to think those people are extremely offensive and should be apologizing for their comments and that being under sanesthetic does not give them a right to say anything inappropriate and they need to be held responsible.

I think people are used to being able to reflexively demand other people apologize. They are frustrated that it doesn't seem to work in this case.

Well, there are other options. Apologies are designed to indicate to people who you’ve hurt in some way that your intention was not to hurt them. Most sincere apologies are met with forgiveness. Without an apology, the consequences for many behaviors are likely to be very different. So, are those of you who don’t believe that apologies are necessary advocating for the kinds of consequences that saying offensive things to people you don’t know will often provoke? If so, you probably don’t have Davidson’s long term best interests at heart.

There are people of all ages and races with coprolalia and I think the view that they owe an apology to anyone who is offended by any of their tics puts a massive burden on them. Many people tic very frequently and continuously being asked to come up with an apology for any offense each tic may have caused or offense taken by those who don't understand may not even be practically feasible.

OK, but surely we can distinguish between ticcing while out to lunch or ticcing while running errands and ticcing , in an otherwise silent large auditorium, while someone is making their televised acceptance speech for a major award. I agree that they don't need to be a constant walking apology, but some situations are different from some others.

Also, I think it's actually kind of dangerous to try to run with the idea that someone with coprolalia doesn't need to feel they owe an apology to anyone, because people need to learn what their disability is and they need to remember to be inclusive. Because people can't even learn what something as common as autism is a good chunk of the time. If someone with coprolalia is taught that it's completely ok to go out in public and not apologize for having tics when they occur, they're going to get harassed, assaulted, or even shot. I'm not saying that is ok, but if someone with this gets onto a bus and sits down and starts with a loud vocal tic of "N WORD, N WORD N WORD" while looking at a bus full of Black people, they can't honestly expect that everyone's just going to take it in stride and continue to peacefully ride the bus together. It's dangerous to set that expectation.

Most people - John included, work extremely hard to not tic (take medication, do therapies) and to be as inoffensive as possible but it isn't a controllable condition and John apologizes all the time. He also chews on a leather thing that he keeps in his mouth that he can bite down on and muffle sound with. But he can't apologize for intentionally directing racist slurs at people to disrupt their day as that just isn't genuine. Sometimes a string of offensive things come out - the condition is about saying offensive things. There is really no way he can be repsonsible for everyone's feelings who are in hearing distance of him. He hates what he says and does - he isn't getting joy from it or from upsetting people. He doesn't want to do it.

There are lots of previous clips about him. He has so many people in his life who talk about what a great guy he is, and I sure it is hard for all of them to see him being spoken about as a man who intentionally yelled racist slurs at two men, ruined their night, and refuses to apologize for it. Especially given this was supposed to be a big night for him with the movie that he worked so hard on coming out. So many people are only reading headlines or seeing short clips and think he is just a horrible human without going any deeper.

[Anonymous]

Don't worry, he has been bullied, hit and beat up many times for his tics. He isn't getting away scot free with his 'bad' behavior. Maybe it will make you feel better to know he has had many life consequences for the inappropriate verbal tics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't you seen the videos of people post anesthesia who say offensive things? Are people really triggered and offended by those vidoes and expect apologies? Usually the people in them are laughing and not taking it personally as they understand what the person coming out of anesthesia is saying is not under their control. But most people on here seem to think those people are extremely offensive and should be apologizing for their comments and that being under sanesthetic does not give them a right to say anything inappropriate and they need to be held responsible.

I think people are used to being able to reflexively demand other people apologize. They are frustrated that it doesn't seem to work in this case.

Well, there are other options. Apologies are designed to indicate to people who you’ve hurt in some way that your intention was not to hurt them. Most sincere apologies are met with forgiveness. Without an apology, the consequences for many behaviors are likely to be very different. So, are those of you who don’t believe that apologies are necessary advocating for the kinds of consequences that saying offensive things to people you don’t know will often provoke? If so, you probably don’t have Davidson’s long term best interests at heart.

There are people of all ages and races with coprolalia and I think the view that they owe an apology to anyone who is offended by any of their tics puts a massive burden on them. Many people tic very frequently and continuously being asked to come up with an apology for any offense each tic may have caused or offense taken by those who don't understand may not even be practically feasible.

OK, but surely we can distinguish between ticcing while out to lunch or ticcing while running errands and ticcing , in an otherwise silent large auditorium, while someone is making their televised acceptance speech for a major award. I agree that they don't need to be a constant walking apology, but some situations are different from some others.

Also, I think it's actually kind of dangerous to try to run with the idea that someone with coprolalia doesn't need to feel they owe an apology to anyone, because people need to learn what their disability is and they need to remember to be inclusive. Because people can't even learn what something as common as autism is a good chunk of the time. If someone with coprolalia is taught that it's completely ok to go out in public and not apologize for having tics when they occur, they're going to get harassed, assaulted, or even shot. I'm not saying that is ok, but if someone with this gets onto a bus and sits down and starts with a loud vocal tic of "N WORD, N WORD N WORD" while looking at a bus full of Black people, they can't honestly expect that everyone's just going to take it in stride and continue to peacefully ride the bus together. It's dangerous to set that expectation.

Most people - John included, work extremely hard to not tic (take medication, do therapies) and to be as inoffensive as possible but it isn't a controllable condition and John apologizes all the time. He also chews on a leather thing that he keeps in his mouth that he can bite down on and muffle sound with. But he can't apologize for intentionally directing racist slurs at people to disrupt their day as that just isn't genuine. Sometimes a string of offensive things come out - the condition is about saying offensive things. There is really no way he can be repsonsible for everyone's feelings who are in hearing distance of him. He hates what he says and does - he isn't getting joy from it or from upsetting people. He doesn't want to do it.

There are lots of previous clips about him. He has so many people in his life who talk about what a great guy he is, and I sure it is hard for all of them to see him being spoken about as a man who intentionally yelled racist slurs at two men, ruined their night, and refuses to apologize for it. Especially given this was supposed to be a big night for him with the movie that he worked so hard on coming out. So many people are only reading headlines or seeing short clips and think he is just a horrible human without going any deeper.

We’ve been over this. He can apologize for the impact of his words. His intention is irrelevant but the impact for what he said does. To not acknowledge the impact is the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry, he has been bullied, hit and beat up many times for his tics. He isn't getting away scot free with his 'bad' behavior. Maybe it will make you feel better to know he has had many life consequences for the inappropriate verbal tics.

Weird to keep adding more consequences, but ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie describes how poor his mental health already was and past suicide attempts. And now he has been humiliated on a global stage and people expect him to parade in public with a Scarlet A and get on his knees and grovel for forgiveness in the face of hate being directed at him.

Likey his team have secluded him away to try to keep him alive and well, a bigger focus for them than insisting he meet every individuals needs for the apology they want from him.

That sort of situation was a no win situation for him. If he didn't attend, he would feel like he was missing out on yet another thing due to his disability. If he did attend, it was very obviously going to go something like this. BAFTA made a massive mistake by airing his vocal outburts on TV. It was nothing short of cruel, to both him and to the people who were on stage when it happened. And honestly? Some situations aren't suited for all people. I have panic attacks on airplanes, so you know what, I don't travel on airplanes. I could, if I had to- and on rare occasions, I have done just that- but it's highly unpleasant for me and I have nightmares about it both before and after. Maybe this person's disability didn't make the evening highly unpleasant for himself, but he made it highly unpleasant for the other honored guests, and maybe he should have just declined the invitation. Is it fair? No. It is incredibly unfair. But sometimes, things are incredibly unfair. It's also unfair that my neighbor's son has a recurrent brain tumor and less than 6 months to live. It's unfair for him that sitting in the audience during that large public ceremony wasn't a good idea, but, it wasn't.

The BAFTAs would probably also have gotten a lot of backlash if they hadn't invited him. The movie is a big hit and is based on his life story and his disability and the stigma and struggle he has had and how disruptive it has been to every aspect of his life - if they had said, no we didn't invite him as his disability (that the movie about) could disrupt others and so we didn't want him here - I doubt that would have gone over very well. Excluding him from that event solely due to his disability would not have been a good look.

In a perfect world, they absolutely would have invited him, and he would have thanked them for their kind invitation, and declined, with something along the lines of "I've learned over the years that attending something like this, where my tics will be loudly disruptive during a speech or presentation, just causes me undue stress and feelings of guilt and embarrassment, even when everyone is understanding and kind. Sticking to smaller, (and certainly untelevised!) gatherings is what keeps my mental health in a good place. But truly, thank you for the invitation." And then maybe they'd follow up with assurances that he would be welcome, and offer to have him come, and mingle before and after the ceremony, but watch the actual ceremony on a screen from the lobby (out of earshot from the speakers on stage), instead of in the general audience, if that would make him feel less anxious. There, I just solved the problem for next time!

Very well put.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie describes how poor his mental health already was and past suicide attempts. And now he has been humiliated on a global stage and people expect him to parade in public with a Scarlet A and get on his knees and grovel for forgiveness in the face of hate being directed at him.

Likey his team have secluded him away to try to keep him alive and well, a bigger focus for them than insisting he meet every individuals needs for the apology they want from him.

That sort of situation was a no win situation for him. If he didn't attend, he would feel like he was missing out on yet another thing due to his disability. If he did attend, it was very obviously going to go something like this. BAFTA made a massive mistake by airing his vocal outburts on TV. It was nothing short of cruel, to both him and to the people who were on stage when it happened. And honestly? Some situations aren't suited for all people. I have panic attacks on airplanes, so you know what, I don't travel on airplanes. I could, if I had to- and on rare occasions, I have done just that- but it's highly unpleasant for me and I have nightmares about it both before and after. Maybe this person's disability didn't make the evening highly unpleasant for himself, but he made it highly unpleasant for the other honored guests, and maybe he should have just declined the invitation. Is it fair? No. It is incredibly unfair. But sometimes, things are incredibly unfair. It's also unfair that my neighbor's son has a recurrent brain tumor and less than 6 months to live. It's unfair for him that sitting in the audience during that large public ceremony wasn't a good idea, but, it wasn't.

The BAFTAs would probably also have gotten a lot of backlash if they hadn't invited him. The movie is a big hit and is based on his life story and his disability and the stigma and struggle he has had and how disruptive it has been to every aspect of his life - if they had said, no we didn't invite him as his disability (that the movie about) could disrupt others and so we didn't want him here - I doubt that would have gone over very well. Excluding him from that event solely due to his disability would not have been a good look.

In a perfect world, they absolutely would have invited him, and he would have thanked them for their kind invitation, and declined, with something along the lines of "I've learned over the years that attending something like this, where my tics will be loudly disruptive during a speech or presentation, just causes me undue stress and feelings of guilt and embarrassment, even when everyone is understanding and kind. Sticking to smaller, (and certainly untelevised!) gatherings is what keeps my mental health in a good place. But truly, thank you for the invitation." And then maybe they'd follow up with assurances that he would be welcome, and offer to have him come, and mingle before and after the ceremony, but watch the actual ceremony on a screen from the lobby (out of earshot from the speakers on stage), instead of in the general audience, if that would make him feel less anxious. There, I just solved the problem for next time!

Except part of the reason for the movie was to try and break down stigma and ignorance and decrease the exclusion of people with disabilities so it kind of seems really wrong for the movie to be making money and profiting onthat theme but the guy who is actually living it can't be accepted. I think the issue was more that there should have been more education and notification given to the guests and attendees and presenters and use it as a way of increasing awareness rather than using it as a way to further stigmatize and exclude him. His coprolalia based on what is in the movie has a wide range of socially inappropriate comments - there really isn't anyone who is 'safe' if he is seen as a bad person and people take it personally, he is going to offend everyone. The education they do in the movie is about ignoring it as any reaction tends to make it worse.

I stand by my opinion that putting the burden of ignoring it on people who are also experiencing a major professional achievement, on television, while screams of "F*** YOU!!" are being directed at them (by someone who wishes he were not screaming it, obviously) is unreasonable. In a grocery store, sure. On a bus? Sure. But if I'm trying to take the SAT and the person next to me is screaming the N word over and over, that's not fair to me, and no, I'm not going to accept that I just have to ignore it and bomb the test because inclusion is important. Do you see the difference? I am positive he doesn't mean to offend anyone or cause any harm. I am positive that the world needs to learn to be inclusive of people with coprolalia, when they're aware that someone has that disorder and are given a heads up. I'm also positive that people should not be told they need to just ignore it and accept it when it's being loudly directed at them, on an international stage, at the pinnacle of their career, accepting an award.

Very well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry, he has been bullied, hit and beat up many times for his tics. He isn't getting away scot free with his 'bad' behavior. Maybe it will make you feel better to know he has had many life consequences for the inappropriate verbal tics.

And I hope it makes you feel better to know that the n-word gets hurled at Black people all the time and they're expected to take it in stride and maintain proper decorum because "it's just a word."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't you seen the videos of people post anesthesia who say offensive things? Are people really triggered and offended by those vidoes and expect apologies? Usually the people in them are laughing and not taking it personally as they understand what the person coming out of anesthesia is saying is not under their control. But most people on here seem to think those people are extremely offensive and should be apologizing for their comments and that being under sanesthetic does not give them a right to say anything inappropriate and they need to be held responsible.

I think people are used to being able to reflexively demand other people apologize. They are frustrated that it doesn't seem to work in this case.

Well, there are other options. Apologies are designed to indicate to people who you’ve hurt in some way that your intention was not to hurt them. Most sincere apologies are met with forgiveness. Without an apology, the consequences for many behaviors are likely to be very different. So, are those of you who don’t believe that apologies are necessary advocating for the kinds of consequences that saying offensive things to people you don’t know will often provoke? If so, you probably don’t have Davidson’s long term best interests at heart.

There are people of all ages and races with coprolalia and I think the view that they owe an apology to anyone who is offended by any of their tics puts a massive burden on them. Many people tic very frequently and continuously being asked to come up with an apology for any offense each tic may have caused or offense taken by those who don't understand may not even be practically feasible.

OK, but surely we can distinguish between ticcing while out to lunch or ticcing while running errands and ticcing , in an otherwise silent large auditorium, while someone is making their televised acceptance speech for a major award. I agree that they don't need to be a constant walking apology, but some situations are different from some others.

Also, I think it's actually kind of dangerous to try to run with the idea that someone with coprolalia doesn't need to feel they owe an apology to anyone, because people need to learn what their disability is and they need to remember to be inclusive. Because people can't even learn what something as common as autism is a good chunk of the time. If someone with coprolalia is taught that it's completely ok to go out in public and not apologize for having tics when they occur, they're going to get harassed, assaulted, or even shot. I'm not saying that is ok, but if someone with this gets onto a bus and sits down and starts with a loud vocal tic of "N WORD, N WORD N WORD" while looking at a bus full of Black people, they can't honestly expect that everyone's just going to take it in stride and continue to peacefully ride the bus together. It's dangerous to set that expectation.

[phone]

[Anonymous]

If I had a physical disorder where I was shitting everywhere uncontrollably, should guests at the televised, public events I attend just sit there and accept it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie describes how poor his mental health already was and past suicide attempts. And now he has been humiliated on a global stage and people expect him to parade in public with a Scarlet A and get on his knees and grovel for forgiveness in the face of hate being directed at him.

Likey his team have secluded him away to try to keep him alive and well, a bigger focus for them than insisting he meet every individuals needs for the apology they want from him.

That sort of situation was a no win situation for him. If he didn't attend, he would feel like he was missing out on yet another thing due to his disability. If he did attend, it was very obviously going to go something like this. BAFTA made a massive mistake by airing his vocal outburts on TV. It was nothing short of cruel, to both him and to the people who were on stage when it happened. And honestly? Some situations aren't suited for all people. I have panic attacks on airplanes, so you know what, I don't travel on airplanes. I could, if I had to- and on rare occasions, I have done just that- but it's highly unpleasant for me and I have nightmares about it both before and after. Maybe this person's disability didn't make the evening highly unpleasant for himself, but he made it highly unpleasant for the other honored guests, and maybe he should have just declined the invitation. Is it fair? No. It is incredibly unfair. But sometimes, things are incredibly unfair. It's also unfair that my neighbor's son has a recurrent brain tumor and less than 6 months to live. It's unfair for him that sitting in the audience during that large public ceremony wasn't a good idea, but, it wasn't.

The BAFTAs would probably also have gotten a lot of backlash if they hadn't invited him. The movie is a big hit and is based on his life story and his disability and the stigma and struggle he has had and how disruptive it has been to every aspect of his life - if they had said, no we didn't invite him as his disability (that the movie about) could disrupt others and so we didn't want him here - I doubt that would have gone over very well. Excluding him from that event solely due to his disability would not have been a good look.

In a perfect world, they absolutely would have invited him, and he would have thanked them for their kind invitation, and declined, with something along the lines of "I've learned over the years that attending something like this, where my tics will be loudly disruptive during a speech or presentation, just causes me undue stress and feelings of guilt and embarrassment, even when everyone is understanding and kind. Sticking to smaller, (and certainly untelevised!) gatherings is what keeps my mental health in a good place. But truly, thank you for the invitation." And then maybe they'd follow up with assurances that he would be welcome, and offer to have him come, and mingle before and after the ceremony, but watch the actual ceremony on a screen from the lobby (out of earshot from the speakers on stage), instead of in the general audience, if that would make him feel less anxious. There, I just solved the problem for next time!

Except part of the reason for the movie was to try and break down stigma and ignorance and decrease the exclusion of people with disabilities so it kind of seems really wrong for the movie to be making money and profiting onthat theme but the guy who is actually living it can't be accepted. I think the issue was more that there should have been more education and notification given to the guests and attendees and presenters and use it as a way of increasing awareness rather than using it as a way to further stigmatize and exclude him. His coprolalia based on what is in the movie has a wide range of socially inappropriate comments - there really isn't anyone who is 'safe' if he is seen as a bad person and people take it personally, he is going to offend everyone. The education they do in the movie is about ignoring it as any reaction tends to make it worse.

I stand by my opinion that putting the burden of ignoring it on people who are also experiencing a major professional achievement, on television, while screams of "F*** YOU!!" are being directed at them (by someone who wishes he were not screaming it, obviously) is unreasonable. In a grocery store, sure. On a bus? Sure. But if I'm trying to take the SAT and the person next to me is screaming the N word over and over, that's not fair to me, and no, I'm not going to accept that I just have to ignore it and bomb the test because inclusion is important. Do you see the difference? I am positive he doesn't mean to offend anyone or cause any harm. I am positive that the world needs to learn to be inclusive of people with coprolalia, when they're aware that someone has that disorder and are given a heads up. I'm also positive that people should not be told they need to just ignore it and accept it when it's being loudly directed at them, on an international stage, at the pinnacle of their career, accepting an award.

Brilliantly put.

[Anonymous]

Two things can be true. People absolutely have the right to express the pain they feel when they experience the N word. It is dehumanizing, and no one should be expected to stay silent or minimize their hurt to make others comfortable.

We can respect and support disabled people while also being clear that using that slur is unacceptable. The feelings of the men on stage should not be dismissed or minimized because of the perpetrator’s circumstances. Centering the harm caused is not discrimination against coprolalia, it’s respecting people’s humanity and dignity.

The fact that the slur was not edited out is disrespectful and should make us ask why.

The fact that right after the incident the request was to support the person with the disability, but no acknowledgement that the slur is wrong or apology should make us ask why.

[Anonymous]

I think his outburst shows how certain words have been given so much power that they overwhelm someone's brain and a person with a disorder like tourettes is going to shout out loud what his brain was subconsciously telling him "when there are black people around, I must never ever utter this word", and then the word comes out.

People need to get a grip who think this is his fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you all know he (or his team) didn't reach out to the two men or others after the fact?

DP here — Because his non-apology was released and has been getting a lot of attention internationally. If he or his team understood the concerns that are being raised and attempted to address them in a positive way, don’t you think they might want to call attention to it?

+1 He issued a public statement! This provided a perfect opportunity to call attention efforts he might have made to make amends, and/or to express some semblance of human empathy or historical understanding.

The fact that he chose to make a statement without an apology, or even acknowledgement of harm, tells me what I need to know about him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you all know he (or his team) didn't reach out to the two men or others after the fact?

DP here — Because his non-apology was released and has been getting a lot of attention internationally. If he or his team understood the concerns that are being raised and attempted to address them in a positive way, don’t you think they might want to call attention to it?

+1 He issued a public statement! This provided a perfect opportunity to call attention efforts he might have made to make amends, and/or to express some semblance of human empathy or historical understanding.

The fact that he chose to make a statement without an apology, or even acknowledgement of harm, tells me what I need to know about him.

+1000