Reply to Bafta awards controversy

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Bafta awards controversy "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]
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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]
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. [/quote]

He didn't cause harm. [/quote]
Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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?

[b]There are numerous scenarios where a disability doesn't completely excuse actions and that's okay.[/b]

That's not even to mention how infantilizing a disabled person is offensive to them and you've quite literally infantilized Davidson.[/quote]
This is why Davidson would have been fired if it was a place of employment.[/quote]

He would not have been. There are many people with Tourette Syndrome and copralalia and other physical and vocal tics in the workplace. [b]They are protected under the ADA.[/b] 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. [/quote]
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
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics