Bafta awards controversy

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No matter which side you pick you're wrong so just ignore and move on.

Or maybe we need to learn that we don’t always have to pick a side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In a thread full of idiocy, "the guy with Tourette's knew what the N word means, and to whom it refers," is really the dumbest statement imaginable. Congratulations, I guess.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Tell me you are completely clueless bout Tourette Syndrome and disability without telling me you are completely clueless and ignorant about Tourette Syndrome.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP: You seem to be deliberately choosing not to understand this disability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nice of you to “give him a pass” for behavior that doesn’t impact you in any way.
I have quite a bit of grace for his involuntary behavior— but none for his inability to apologize directly to people that he hurt.

[Anonymous]

I have confidence that the two actors involved are able to comprehend disability and uncontrolled / involuntary actions and that they would no more go after him about harm he caused them than they would go after a blind man who bumped into them or an adult with austim whose vocalizations interrupted an interview etc.

Although some on here can't understand that concept, I would like to think that those involved can.

It seems BAFTA did tell the audience in advance that he was in attendance and that there could be vocalizations without warning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP: You seem to be deliberately choosing not to understand this disability.

DP: While you seem to be deliberately choosing not to understand that adult behavior requires responsibility for the impacts of your actions on others — even when those actions are involuntary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he had been addicted to nicotine and he lit up there’d be no shortage of people volunteering to be on the firing squad

Unless your mom smoked and you came out of the womb addicted, Nicotine is a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP: You seem to be deliberately choosing not to understand this disability.

DP: While you seem to be deliberately choosing not to understand that adult behavior requires responsibility for the impacts of your actions on others — even when those actions are involuntary.

And how did his "behavior" (using a very loose and not altogether accurate definition of the term) impact you, PP? Or the presenters? Are they able to go on with their days? Or are they huddled up in a corner? Gimme a break.

[Anonymous]

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.

He didn't *intend* to cause harm. However, we now believe words cause physical harm and intent no longer matters. Outcomes are all that is important.

[Anonymous]

Actually, there's an old video of him out there hitting his mom while they are grocery shopping and he apologizes to her profusely because he knows it hurts her, so why not apologize for this? No one is upset with him having a disability. It's acknowledging that the things you say and do can't hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP: You seem to be deliberately choosing not to understand this disability.

DP: While you seem to be deliberately choosing not to understand that adult behavior requires responsibility for the impacts of your actions on others — even when those actions are involuntary.

Since his existence as an individual with Tourette in your view is harmful - he has outbursts many times a day - how should he take responsibility for existing? Should he be institutionalized and kept in isolation to prevent futher harm that you feel he is responsible for? What is the point in apologizing when he can't control it and it can happen again in 5 minutes or 10 minutes or 20 minutes? How can an apology be seen as meaningful when it doesn't change anything about his disability or the copralalia? How can he take responsibility for something he can't control? He can't control who will understand he has a disability and who won't and will be angry and feel harmed by him. He can't anticipate harm as many people do understand and won't be harmed.