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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.