Bafta awards controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're telling me that due to coprolalia, he has absolutely no control over his outbursts... yet his brain is "automatically" able to tailor a specific insult for a specific recipient?

Black people: Ns
Queen: f the queen

What's next?
SA survivors: "you f'ing deserved it"
Women PhDs: "dumb w---res"
Person in wheelchair: "cripple"

Really?

I'd maybe buy it if he called everyone Ns or hoes. But this just seems too far fetched.

Why does his brain go there, lol

Watch the movie.

The movie is all about how hard this is for HIM. Even the scene where he gets punched in the bar. Well... he threw a drink on a stranger. How do you think that felt for the poor guy who just wanted to have a good time and a random guy douses you with beer for no reason?

The movie wants to convince us that "good, loving" people should embrace his outbursts. Like when he says stuff like "I put c-m in your drink" and they're all "awww! That's adorable!" It's not. I have children and I can't imagine asking my 8 year old daughter to put up with someone yelling "suck my d--k!" to her. That's not civilized. That's disgusting.

Okay sure. But what would you do if it was your daughter or son with this disorder and they were the ones yelling out obscenities and socially inappropriate things. What if was them having involuntary movement tics and knocking things? What if it was your child saying those words to others? Would you just be disgusted by them and keep them home? How would you protect their siblings? What would you do with your uncivlized child? Picture your kids - where would you send them away to to ensure they didn't bother anyone?

DP: If it were my kid, I would teach them to be very quick and very good at apologizing, and working on empathy would be ongoing— because I would want them to be able to have the option of successfully navigating societal interactions with other people. It’s a given that in light of the disorder, they are going to bother and possibly disgust other people. I’d want them to have the best possible chance to interact positively with peers and the wider community. Social skills would also increase their safety .

It’s wild how many comments here are saying things like: you want to send them away. Nope. I’d want to teach them social skills and empathy to keep from sending them away. There is a middle ground — and it includes taking responsibility for the impact of one’s behavior on others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're telling me that due to coprolalia, he has absolutely no control over his outbursts... yet his brain is "automatically" able to tailor a specific insult for a specific recipient?

Black people: Ns
Queen: f the queen

What's next?
SA survivors: "you f'ing deserved it"
Women PhDs: "dumb w---res"
Person in wheelchair: "cripple"

Really?

I'd maybe buy it if he called everyone Ns or hoes. But this just seems too far fetched.

Why does his brain go there, lol

Watch the movie.

The movie is all about how hard this is for HIM. Even the scene where he gets punched in the bar. Well... he threw a drink on a stranger. How do you think that felt for the poor guy who just wanted to have a good time and a random guy douses you with beer for no reason?

The movie wants to convince us that "good, loving" people should embrace his outbursts. Like when he says stuff like "I put c-m in your drink" and they're all "awww! That's adorable!" It's not. I have children and I can't imagine asking my 8 year old daughter to put up with someone yelling "suck my d--k!" to her. That's not civilized. That's disgusting.

Okay sure. But what would you do if it was your daughter or son with this disorder and they were the ones yelling out obscenities and socially inappropriate things. What if was them having involuntary movement tics and knocking things? What if it was your child saying those words to others? Would you just be disgusted by them and keep them home? How would you protect their siblings? What would you do with your uncivlized child? Picture your kids - where would you send them away to to ensure they didn't bother anyone?

DP: If it were my kid, I would teach them to be very quick and very good at apologizing, and working on empathy would be ongoing— because I would want them to be able to have the option of successfully navigating societal interactions with other people. It’s a given that in light of the disorder, they are going to bother and possibly disgust other people. I’d want them to have the best possible chance to interact positively with peers and the wider community. Social skills would also increase their safety .

It’s wild how many comments here are saying things like: you want to send them away. Nope. I’d want to teach them social skills and empathy to keep from sending them away. There is a middle ground — and it includes taking responsibility for the impact of one’s behavior on others.

I think your view that he doesn't have empathy would be changed by seeing the movie. And that people with coprolalia don't have teachable social skills. Or that he hasn't tried therapies, groups, medications, adaptive equipment etc.

[Anonymous]

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/

Huh? That was your takeaway from his statement? Are you just trying to be offended by something at this point?

[Anonymous]

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.

Maybe he did it to the actual people who were harmed by it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're telling me that due to coprolalia, he has absolutely no control over his outbursts... yet his brain is "automatically" able to tailor a specific insult for a specific recipient?

Black people: Ns
Queen: f the queen

What's next?
SA survivors: "you f'ing deserved it"
Women PhDs: "dumb w---res"
Person in wheelchair: "cripple"

Really?

I'd maybe buy it if he called everyone Ns or hoes. But this just seems too far fetched.

Why does his brain go there, lol

Watch the movie.

The movie is all about how hard this is for HIM. Even the scene where he gets punched in the bar. Well... he threw a drink on a stranger. How do you think that felt for the poor guy who just wanted to have a good time and a random guy douses you with beer for no reason?

The movie wants to convince us that "good, loving" people should embrace his outbursts. Like when he says stuff like "I put c-m in your drink" and they're all "awww! That's adorable!" It's not. I have children and I can't imagine asking my 8 year old daughter to put up with someone yelling "suck my d--k!" to her. That's not civilized. That's disgusting.

Okay sure. But what would you do if it was your daughter or son with this disorder and they were the ones yelling out obscenities and socially inappropriate things. What if was them having involuntary movement tics and knocking things? What if it was your child saying those words to others? Would you just be disgusted by them and keep them home? How would you protect their siblings? What would you do with your uncivlized child? Picture your kids - where would you send them away to to ensure they didn't bother anyone?

Omg I’d love them and get them all the help I could, and I ALSO wouldn’t bring them to a funeral of a young child knowing that they would probably involuntarily yell out horrific things about the deceased and add layers of grief to the mourners. For one extreme example. There is a middle ground between “they belong in every environment and people have to deal!” And “lock them in a padded room”

But it isn't just a funeral - it can happen anywhere. They wouldn't be able to go to school or have friends or do anything social or recreational as they could be the disgusting, uncivilized creature you see John to be. They might knock a drink at school. You would have to get rid of them - send them to an institution where they can be isolated and not harm anyone with their words or actions. It isn't going to have less impact if they say a charged word and it impacts someone at school or home or the grocery store, it is still going to impact and that is all that matters. So when people say - why is this disgusting, uncivilized child out in public, get them out of here - you will agree and apologize for your child's disability and remove them from society right? It is harder when it is your child that you have to look at and label as disgusting, uncilivilized and not fit for public or society inclusion. John's mother frequently despised him too, as you would your kids - those disgusting, rude, uncivilized children - no one should have to ever, ever hear or see them. If you can say that about others, you would be the same with your own.

I think this is why it's so difficult. But I do think he's been extended more grace than usual (perhaps because it was an award event he was invited to). I don't know or pretend to know the answer. But your examples strike me as hitting very close to least restrictive environments in school settings. If your kid has a severe disasbility, you of course want them in the least restrictive setting. Imagine it results in the child lashing out violently. The parents of the other kids in the classroom want that child out because dealing with their outbursts is disruptive to the rest of the children and their learning environment. Where do person A's rights end and person B's rights begin? Is there an overlap? What if something bad happens during that overlap? When do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

Agreed. It is an issue societies have to deal with. Disabilities mean an impact so do we exclude to avoid the impact or include because they are seen as humans with rights to be participants in society despite impacts. There are many models about dsiability and dsiability thoery - one being the social model of disability that sees society as needing to adapt to diversity and accept differences rather than people with disabilities needing to be responsible that everyone around them is comfortable.

Society has gone with exclusion in the past. We used to have schools for kids with special needs so they didn't mix and people weren't hired into workplaces and many were instituationalized to keep them away from others. Deinstituationalization and a push for DEI shifted things but sometimes the pendulum starts swinging back again. This situation was actually in the UK so it would be interesting to see what the societal view there is of inclusion vs exclusion and DEI. I wonder if the Brits reacted as strongly as the Americans against John. After Trump's decisions, the UK reform party also moved to scrap DEI. I think a couple years ago, that would have gotten a huge push back - but is is interesting that in this thread, it seems about 50% would be on board with that now (as it relates to people with disabilities). Not sure if that is the Trump effect or the pendulum swinging.

Don't worry, there will be no pendulum swing against disabilities because the people were yelled at were Black.

Nothing changed after he yelled at the Queen either.

[Anonymous]

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.

Honestly, you people are exhausting. Your outrage about something that had no effect on you is misplaced. Get over yourself.

[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.

+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.

Seriously, what is your damage?

[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.

The point has flown so far over your head at this point that you should probably just stop looking for it.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if he had been told that people had been made aware of his condition or that he thought they would have some awareness due to the movie. I would think (based on him doing so in the movie) that he would have had that conversation about informing the audience before hand. It probably was a shock to him too to realize that people didn't know and thought he was just an angry racist being hateful towards presenters and others. He probably assumed during his first few vocalizations that people were informed and understood this would happen. Maybe it wasn't until the n word vocalization that he realized many didn't know and so that is when he left.

[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.

15 pages of idiotic posts disagree with your statement.

[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.

No, actually, if you’ve bothered to read the comments and understood them, you’d see that most understand that he can’t control his tics AND that he should apologize when it’s likely that he’s inadvertently hurt someone— just as all of us should.

He would spend every minute of everyday apologizing. How about people stop being so sensitive? When you know it’s a tic and he can’t help it, why on earth would you be so offended by what he’s saying?? He’s just speaking nonsense.

Damn. Every day I wake up hoping the world would be less racist. And every day there’s a person like you PP.

That wasn't a racist comment. Do better.

[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!

Who the F do you think you are to decide what Davidson should do? The audacity of most of you is astounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Literally no one is arguing that it’s his fault. People are arguing that the situation was avoidable

And those people are missing the whole point. It's shocking that you don't see that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're telling me that due to coprolalia, he has absolutely no control over his outbursts... yet his brain is "automatically" able to tailor a specific insult for a specific recipient?

Black people: Ns
Queen: f the queen

What's next?
SA survivors: "you f'ing deserved it"
Women PhDs: "dumb w---res"
Person in wheelchair: "cripple"

Really?

I'd maybe buy it if he called everyone Ns or hoes. But this just seems too far fetched.

Why does his brain go there, lol

Watch the movie.

The movie is all about how hard this is for HIM. Even the scene where he gets punched in the bar. Well... he threw a drink on a stranger. How do you think that felt for the poor guy who just wanted to have a good time and a random guy douses you with beer for no reason?

The movie wants to convince us that "good, loving" people should embrace his outbursts. Like when he says stuff like "I put c-m in your drink" and they're all "awww! That's adorable!" It's not. I have children and I can't imagine asking my 8 year old daughter to put up with someone yelling "suck my d--k!" to her. That's not civilized. That's disgusting.

Okay sure. But what would you do if it was your daughter or son with this disorder and they were the ones yelling out obscenities and socially inappropriate things. What if was them having involuntary movement tics and knocking things? What if it was your child saying those words to others? Would you just be disgusted by them and keep them home? How would you protect their siblings? What would you do with your uncivlized child? Picture your kids - where would you send them away to to ensure they didn't bother anyone?

DP: If it were my kid, I would teach them to be very quick and very good at apologizing, and working on empathy would be ongoing— because I would want them to be able to have the option of successfully navigating societal interactions with other people. It’s a given that in light of the disorder, they are going to bother and possibly disgust other people. I’d want them to have the best possible chance to interact positively with peers and the wider community. Social skills would also increase their safety .

It’s wild how many comments here are saying things like: you want to send them away. Nope. I’d want to teach them social skills and empathy to keep from sending them away. There is a middle ground — and it includes taking responsibility for the impact of one’s behavior on others.

I think your view that he doesn't have empathy would be changed by seeing the movie. And that people with coprolalia don't have teachable social skills. Or that he hasn't tried therapies, groups, medications, adaptive equipment etc.

I didn’t say that he doesn’t have empathy. If you actually read my comment, you’d notice that I wrote in general terms about my hypothetical kid.

As to the rest, you’re making so many assumptions that are not based on my actual comment that you might as well be talking with yourself — so have at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I smell bs. A man with Tourette’s yells out the n word. Of all the words in existence that Tourette’s suffers can blurt. He says the n word, at BAFTAS. Puleeezz. And then to top it all off he never apologizes

Sounds like he meant it. Sounds like he’s using his “diagnosis” as an excuse to be an openly racist jerk.

It’s like a South Park episode

It sounds like that's exactly what happens. The brain imagines the worst thing you can say in a moment and then you involuntarily say it. This is the same guy who said "F& the Queen" when he met her. My son had a mild form of Tourettes when he was young that he outgrew but it was a throat clearing grunt then later hard blinking of his eyes over and over. Thankfully it was nothing like this.

Throat clearing is one thing.

Thinking, then placing the tongue up to the roof of the mouth, pushing air through vocal cords, then moving the tongue to the back of the mouth, and to move the tongue mid mouth while contorting it, is another.

It is more complex than a simple tick or urge.

While you may disagree that this is real, it is nonetheless a diagnosed disability.

I am a different poster and I agree with you that it’s totally involuntary, what he is saying, due to his Tourette’s. However , the audience was not given nearly enough of a warning (“some involuntary noises”???) as to what types of involuntary things he tended to shout. And you know the common saying, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose? (Or whatever the exact words are). To me this is the same. He cannot control his disability and I truly feel very bad for him. HOWEVER, it is deeply upsetting to be loudly called something so offensive as the N word as you’re on stage in front of a televised international audience. He could have muffled his voice during the speeches. He could have stepped out for every speech. He could have excused himself earlier. And most importantly, BAFTA could have given a legitimate heads up that was more specific and informative, and then they could have not televised the outburst!!!

I'd love to know what you have done to further causes of the Black community. My guess? This false outrage posting is the extent of it.