Bafta awards controversy

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

That is a bonkers framing. You can do something involuntarily and still apologize for the harm you've done. That's literally the entire premise of "Intent is not Impact," which is a core DEI tenet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So similar to the HGTV lady who "accidentally" shouted the N word.

If the N word is in your vocabulary and you arent part of that community, you're racist. Whether you involuntary shout racist things or not doesnt matter, because the racism is already there.

Tell me you're an idiot without telling me you're an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was important for the person with Tourette’s to attend because “I Swear,” a movie about him and his condition, was a BAFTA contender.

The whole point of the movie is that we should all give more grace to someone with Tourette’s and coprolalia - they shouldn’t have to avoid public venues and not live life. This same person had an unfortunate outburst when he was getting his MBE award from Queen Elizabeth. She knew about his condition and he was still invited to the ceremony.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2n9709g0go

If they are going to shout racial slurs, yes, they should avoid public venues. It’s unfortunate that shouting slurs is a symptom of their disability but oh well. The rest of the world doesn’t need to accommodate you screaming racist epithets.

Actually, the rest of the world should accommodate people with a disability that may cause them to shout racial epithets with no ill intent. You are a disgusting, ablest pig.

No. If they can't behave in public, they need to not be in public.

So you believe that a person with a disability should not attend attend an award ceremony where a movie about him and his disability is nominated because the manifestation of that same disability might make others uncomfortable?

That is truly too stupid for words.

Depends on what he would say. We now know that his attendance should have been significantly limited. Including not attending the dinner post ceremony where he yet again screamed the N word at a black woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine this: Think of the worst thing you could say or do at a given moment. Now imagine having a condition that makes you do or say that thing, against your will, at that moment. And it's also heightened by stress and stimulation. This is a very, very simplified description of his disability. It's not a matter of knowing to hold in your racist beliefs, it's know that saying the n-word is an awful, awful thing to do.

I encourage everyone struggling to understand how this isn't blatantly racist to check out the film "I Swear." It's based on John Davidson's life with Tourette's and gives an amazing perspective into what it's like. For example, in one scene he's applying for a job and asked if he can make coffee. He responds by saying he uses semen for milk. He wants this job. He wants to respond like a normal person. The worst thing he could say is something offensive and disgusting. And so that's what his brain does.

BAFTA/BBC are the real failures here for not editing it out of the broadcast. And John Davidson *has* apologized. The whole film is about how he feels shame and exclusion for something beyond his control, and the world is better for everyone when people welcome him to public spaces and try to understand.

Really? What was the substance of Davidson’s “apology”? Who — exactly— did he apologize to?

All I’ve read so far has been his comment about how mortified he is about his behavior and how he works to support the Tourette’s community.
That’s not an apology. His comment in no way addresses the harm done both directly to specific people and indirectly to the audiences for the program by his behavior. The world is not “better for everyone “ when he lacks the willingness or the capacity to take responsibility for the impacts of his behavior on other people. It’s hard to apologize, it’s hard to experience and express shame. If he doesn’t want to “feel … exclusion”, handling the impacts of his involuntary behavior on the people that he hurts would go a long way in helping him achieve his goal of being welcomed.

TLDR: Perhaps Davidson needs a bit more practice with trying to understand the impacts of his behavior on others — and with formulating and expressing genuine apologies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can never understand what it’s like to be a person with Tourette’s syndrome or a person of color. That said, I agree with Jamie Fox and others on this. Many apologies and will not happen agains need to be given and BAFTA should not air. The fact the word was even in the man’s vocabulary says something. I’ll also add I was around a few people with Tourette’s syndrome for a year and no one said any racial slurs.

Isn’t it in everyone’s vocabulary? I’ve never said it in my life but it’s certainly in my head somewhere because I’ve heard people say it in music and TV shows.

My child has Tourette’s. Their vocal tics are animal noises — mostly sound like bird calls. My child does not have any interest in birding and has never been birding, yet there is is, popping out of their head. There are some CBT techniques you can use to suppress a tic—my child did the therapy at children’s. I don’t know how successful it is if you have an extreme version of it and I don’t know if it works for everyone. I am sure my child’s tics are distracting to some people, and they typically took tests in a separate room because of it, but were not otherwise excluded from classes even though I’m sure some kids would have preferred them to not be there.

I think all this is really hard, but I agree with PP that it seems easy enough for Bafta to edit out the words, and for the person with Tourette’s to make a sincere apology. I think the best way to view it as someone that accidentally said something that sounded like the word — lbut you knew that’s not what they were trying to say.

Did the man use the n-word other times of only when he sees black people?

It's a little bit like that HGTV host who dropped the n-word as an expletive. I know she's not disabled with Tourrettes but the fact that it's in one's vocabulary

How does Tourrettes work, say you hear French around but you don't speak it, if you are disabled will you involuntarily say French things?

That word is in everyone's vocabulary if you live in America. I don't say it but I've been aware of it since I was a young child.

But go ahead, act like you're somehow morally superior to everyone else. And no, this is not remotely the same thing as Nicole Curtis being caught dropping the N word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was important for the person with Tourette’s to attend because “I Swear,” a movie about him and his condition, was a BAFTA contender.

The whole point of the movie is that we should all give more grace to someone with Tourette’s and coprolalia - they shouldn’t have to avoid public venues and not live life. This same person had an unfortunate outburst when he was getting his MBE award from Queen Elizabeth. She knew about his condition and he was still invited to the ceremony.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2n9709g0go

If they are going to shout racial slurs, yes, they should avoid public venues. It’s unfortunate that shouting slurs is a symptom of their disability but oh well. The rest of the world doesn’t need to accommodate you screaming racist epithets.

Actually, the rest of the world should accommodate people with a disability that may cause them to shout racial epithets with no ill intent. You are a disgusting, ablest pig.

No. If they can't behave in public, they need to not be in public.

So you believe that a person with a disability should not attend attend an award ceremony where a movie about him and his disability is nominated because the manifestation of that same disability might make others uncomfortable?

That is truly too stupid for words.

Depends on what he would say. We now know that his attendance should have been significantly limited. Including not attending the dinner post ceremony where he yet again screamed the N word at a black woman.

Should we ban all people who yell things out and are disruptive or have the potential? That would certainly make a lot of events flow better without needing to censor outbursts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He also did leave after saying the n word and watched the rest in a separate room.

BAFTA should have handled and managed it differently in many ways.

He had a right to be there given his movie is literally about this exact condition and the issues it causes. For the people there, this was a one time thing, for him, it is an everyday thing. Perhaps introducing and speaking to his movie at the start of the BAFTAs would have been a way to introduce the audience and to give context.

He also attended the BAFTA Dinner after the show where he continued to use the racial slur.

I dont think the word "use" is correct in your sentence. Use suggests intent.

It was intentional!

What was intentional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was important for the person with Tourette’s to attend because “I Swear,” a movie about him and his condition, was a BAFTA contender.

The whole point of the movie is that we should all give more grace to someone with Tourette’s and coprolalia - they shouldn’t have to avoid public venues and not live life. This same person had an unfortunate outburst when he was getting his MBE award from Queen Elizabeth. She knew about his condition and he was still invited to the ceremony.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2n9709g0go

If they are going to shout racial slurs, yes, they should avoid public venues. It’s unfortunate that shouting slurs is a symptom of their disability but oh well. The rest of the world doesn’t need to accommodate you screaming racist epithets.

Actually, the rest of the world should accommodate people with a disability that may cause them to shout racial epithets with no ill intent. You are a disgusting, ablest pig.

No. If they can't behave in public, they need to not be in public.

So you believe that a person with a disability should not attend attend an award ceremony where a movie about him and his disability is nominated because the manifestation of that same disability might make others uncomfortable?

That is truly too stupid for words.

Depends on what he would say. We now know that his attendance should have been significantly limited. Including not attending the dinner post ceremony where he yet again screamed the N word at a black woman.

Absolutely not, on both fronts. It's disheartening to realize that many people think this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if they shout something ableist? Like gassing disabled people?

Why do you think that would be different? Or do you just not understand the disability?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine this: Think of the worst thing you could say or do at a given moment. Now imagine having a condition that makes you do or say that thing, against your will, at that moment. And it's also heightened by stress and stimulation. This is a very, very simplified description of his disability. It's not a matter of knowing to hold in your racist beliefs, it's know that saying the n-word is an awful, awful thing to do.

I encourage everyone struggling to understand how this isn't blatantly racist to check out the film "I Swear." It's based on John Davidson's life with Tourette's and gives an amazing perspective into what it's like. For example, in one scene he's applying for a job and asked if he can make coffee. He responds by saying he uses semen for milk. He wants this job. He wants to respond like a normal person. The worst thing he could say is something offensive and disgusting. And so that's what his brain does.

BAFTA/BBC are the real failures here for not editing it out of the broadcast. And John Davidson *has* apologized. The whole film is about how he feels shame and exclusion for something beyond his control, and the world is better for everyone when people welcome him to public spaces and try to understand.

Really? What was the substance of Davidson’s “apology”? Who — exactly— did he apologize to?

All I’ve read so far has been his comment about how mortified he is about his behavior and how he works to support the Tourette’s community.
That’s not an apology. His comment in no way addresses the harm done both directly to specific people and indirectly to the audiences for the program by his behavior. The world is not “better for everyone “ when he lacks the willingness or the capacity to take responsibility for the impacts of his behavior on other people. It’s hard to apologize, it’s hard to experience and express shame. If he doesn’t want to “feel … exclusion”, handling the impacts of his involuntary behavior on the people that he hurts would go a long way in helping him achieve his goal of being welcomed.

TLDR: Perhaps Davidson needs a bit more practice with trying to understand the impacts of his behavior on others — and with formulating and expressing genuine apologies.

TLDR: He really should have apologized more profusely and directly for the way his disability manifested itself.

You know what? The guy has gone through enough in his life, I think I'll give him a pass here. A bit of grace, maybe. Give it a whirl, PP, you might like how it turns out.

[Anonymous]

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.

I try to discuss things with civility, even on the internet so I don't say this lightly but, you might be an idiot. A blind person should still apologize for bumping into someone. "Sorry, for bumping into you, but I'm blind" is a perfectly reasonable expectation in that scenario. An assault charge is not BUT nobody is saying Davidson should be arrested. Nobody is saying he should be the victim of disparaging words. Try a little harder to stay on track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was important for the person with Tourette’s to attend because “I Swear,” a movie about him and his condition, was a BAFTA contender.

The whole point of the movie is that we should all give more grace to someone with Tourette’s and coprolalia - they shouldn’t have to avoid public venues and not live life. This same person had an unfortunate outburst when he was getting his MBE award from Queen Elizabeth. She knew about his condition and he was still invited to the ceremony.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2n9709g0go

If they are going to shout racial slurs, yes, they should avoid public venues. It’s unfortunate that shouting slurs is a symptom of their disability but oh well. The rest of the world doesn’t need to accommodate you screaming racist epithets.

Actually, the rest of the world should accommodate people with a disability that may cause them to shout racial epithets with no ill intent. You are a disgusting, ablest pig.

No. If they can't behave in public, they need to not be in public.

So you believe that a person with a disability should not attend attend an award ceremony where a movie about him and his disability is nominated because the manifestation of that same disability might make others uncomfortable?

That is truly too stupid for words.

Depends on what he would say. We now know that his attendance should have been significantly limited. Including not attending the dinner post ceremony where he yet again screamed the N word at a black woman.

Absolutely not, on both fronts. It's disheartening to realize that many people think this way.

Too bad. If you cannot control that you are going to yell racial slurs then yes, your attendance at public events should be limited. Thankfully not even the ADA protects you at work if you have to scream out slurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Sorry if you feel offended is not a proper apology.

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So similar to the HGTV lady who "accidentally" shouted the N word.

If the N word is in your vocabulary and you arent part of that community, you're racist. Whether you involuntary shout racist things or not doesnt matter, because the racism is already there.

You are choosing not to understand this disability. Terrible words are in everyone's vocabulary. Most of us can control whether or not they come out of our mouths; some have a disability that does not allow them that control, even if they personally abhor the words.