Anonymous wrote:What I don’t understand is all these Americans getting their knickers in a twist about this. How many of you were following the BAFTAs before this? Yet somehow this deeply affects you?

People will seize any opportunity to express their performative outrage, no matter how complex and nuanced the issue actually is…

Are discussions of topics in the news not allowed?

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're saying you don't understand the meaning of the word involuntary?

I think what everyone is hung up on is that this word had to have been in his thoughts. Seems stretchy to me.

So nobody can suggest someone like that should not attend golf tennis or chess matches?

I will suggest it. If they can't be counted on to control their tics to the point it can become a disturbance to those involved, then of course they should not attend.

I guess you will never trip going up the metro stairs. You'll never be the server who accidentally drops a tray on a diner. You'll never rear end someone in your car.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're saying you don't understand the meaning of the word involuntary?

I think what everyone is hung up on is that this word had to have been in his thoughts. Seems stretchy to me.

So nobody can suggest someone like that should not attend golf tennis or chess matches?

Oh FFS. Anyone who is too precious to play golf or tennis needs to get over themselves. It's not ok to need to control an environment to the extent that you ban people from it.

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.

No he did not. He did exactly what you did. He centered himself and his disability in a situation that deserved a direct apology for the harm he caused. To the three people he hurled the slur at and everyone at home impacted by hearing what he said.

His disability doesn’t override the trauma that he may cause with his words.

Anonymous wrote:So you're saying you don't understand the meaning of the word involuntary?

I think what everyone is hung up on is that this word had to have been in his thoughts. Seems stretchy to me.

I think what people are hung up on, or at least what they should be hung up on, is the fact that the broadcasters didn't bleep the word before airing it. There was a delay and other, far less offensive things, were bleeped. That's the issue.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don’t understand is all these Americans getting their knickers in a twist about this. How many of you were following the BAFTAs before this? Yet somehow this deeply affects you?

People will seize any opportunity to express their performative outrage, no matter how complex and nuanced the issue actually is…

Racism affects everyone.

Not to mention the incident directly impacted Black AMERICANS

Yes, and it’s not like 3 black americans were just out and about and overheard someone nearby using the word. Davidson said the word directly to them. The word was meant for them. And to then not apologize is pretty unforgivable.

Anonymous wrote:I understand about Tourette’s, but I also believe that an individual’s rights end where someone else’s begins.

The winners on stage had the right to enjoy their moment without having offensive things yelled at them, for whatever reason and no matter if it was racial slurs or sexual comments or just something gross and inappropriate.

I support the rights of disabled people to be included in public, but it’s very entitled to think your rights are more important than those of others.

Exactly. There are adults who are incontinent due to disability, but we’d expect them to take steps to not leave urine and feces all over shared spaces.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I don’t understand is all these Americans getting their knickers in a twist about this. How many of you were following the BAFTAs before this? Yet somehow this deeply affects you?

People will seize any opportunity to express their performative outrage, no matter how complex and nuanced the issue actually is…

Racism affects everyone.

Not to mention the incident directly impacted Black AMERICANS

Anonymous wrote:I can understand the gentleman with Tourette's being unable to control his outbursts.

I can understand black people being offended.

I CANNOT understand the BAFTA producers and broadcast network making the deliberate choice to not edit the clip and remove those outbursts. Seems like a conscience decision to get the current visibility to the detriment of John Davidson, Delray Lindo, Michael B. Jordan, black people and folks with Tourettes.

+1. Also, the host immediately asked for understanding of the disability and never acknowledged how awful the word is or apologize to the Americans who handled it gracefully.

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.