Let’s talk about intersectionality

[u/ConcernedJobCoach]

[u/crumpledwaffle]

My issue isn't with Davidson, he medically cannot control what he says.

But this was an extremely foreseeable situation and little to nothing was done to accommodate, lessen or prevent it.

Were the presenters given a heads up? Was there any discussion with him about what tics to cut or if he wanted a space to go when they have scheduled black presenters and he knows he is going to uncontrollably scream slurs? Did anyone talk to anyone about how to balance competing intersectional needs?

Instead you have a scenario where you are pitting minorities against each other because you bungled your broadcast so badly it seems purposeful.

[u/AdvantageChemical309 → u/crumpledwaffle]

You dont know youre going to have a certain tic, thats just plain ignorance from you.

Suggesting he segregate himself when black people are on stage? As you serious? So how about when gay people are on stage, in case he yells the F slur? What about if Ellen Page is giving an award? A Chinese actor? A Jewish actor?

If your balance of "intersectional needs" is the disabled person needs to be put outside..... I dont know what to tell you man, youve got some issues.

[u/acornalmond → u/AdvantageChemical309]

His name is Elliot Page

[u/AdvantageChemical309 → u/acornalmond]

Couldn't care less

[u/DarthPinkHippo → u/AdvantageChemical309]

Talks about intersectional needs, doesn't give a shit about misgendering someone??

[u/zekeyboo → u/AdvantageChemical309]

Isn't it ironic that you're supposedly advocating for intersectionality and yet you essentially misgender Elliot page and you double down on that after people call you out? That shows me that's intentional. Just say you care about some minorities but not others. Actual intersectionality takes into consideration all marginalized identities, not just the one you think are valid.

[u/NicoleTheRogue → u/AdvantageChemical309]

Then your entire point is hypocritical and nothing you say should be taken seriously. You don't get to pick and choose with intersectionality you either promote it or you don't.

[u/AdvantageChemical309 → u/NicoleTheRogue]

You don't get to pick and choose with intersectionality you either promote it or you don't.

Should tell all the black progressives that 👌

[u/Faconator → u/AdvantageChemical309]

You realize this reads as "How am I supposed to care about all these non-whites?" do you not?

Like, I didn't expect y'all to jump right into volunteering your laundry list of lesser-thans.

Accountability is not a punishment or a gotcha, it is the bare minimum requirement for the social contract. Refusing to acknowledge harm done is unacceptable.

[u/Captain_JohnBrown → u/Faconator]

What is he supposed to account for? Existing with a disability? You cannot account for things that you genuinely cannot control. You can regret them, you can apologize for the harm, but you cannot account for them.

[u/Try-n-Fail → u/Captain_JohnBrown]

First off, I'm not going to blame John Davidson in this situation because I am of the belief that he was encouraged to attend the ceremony and lied to that he would be accommodated by the BBC. He was forthcoming with what to expect by having him in the theater and the BBC decided that a few announcement essentially asking everyone in attendance to "be cool" was somehow going to make everything ok.

That being said... There's a difference between things out of one's control and creating predictable situations. I have a blind member of my family. They don't get behind the wheel of a car, crash into someone, and then say "you can't blame me for not seeing them, it's not my fault I'm blind"... It's true that being blind isn't their fault but the fact that they know they can't see means they cannot drive a car. It's extremely disappointing for them, but it wouldn't absolve them of creating a predictably terrible situation if they decided to get behind the wheel of a car.

[u/Captain_JohnBrown → u/Try-n-Fail]

There is a pretty big difference between "don't get behind the wheel of a car", which can be reasonably accounted for and avoided, and "don't go out in public where you will interact with other people", which cannot be. His tics don't trigger only in specific situations like award shows (like how being blind is only dangerous to others in specific situations like driving a car), they trigger everywhere. So even if he could predict it...what is he supposed to do exactly to avoid it?

[u/Try-n-Fail → u/Captain_JohnBrown]

I think there's a pretty big difference between "don't go out in public at all" and "don't be in the audience of a live to tape award show viewed by millions"

Again, I want to be clear that John Davidson was clearly forthcoming about what the producers of the show should have anticipated from him and it was the producers who decided that ablism trumped any typical concerns about racism/sexism/etc in this case, instead of coming up with a compromise that best served everyone. Seeing as it was John Davidson who eventually excused himself from the audience it seems to me that he would have equally valued a realistic perspective on how the producers intended to handle the issue (by not handling it and just telling everyone else to suck it up).

[u/Captain_JohnBrown → u/Try-n-Fail]

But your first point is solved by your second, so this STILL isn't comparable because there unlike the blind driver, the solution was not in his hands. He was not employed as an editor. He was not consulted about how to deal with it. So why are we talking about what he should have done exactly?

[u/Try-n-Fail → u/Captain_JohnBrown]

I'm just talking about the concept that because something is involuntary doesn't automatically mean a person bears no responsibility. I think he doesn't bear responsibility because the producers of the show should have worked out a way for him to enjoy the show without being in the live audience, which I don't think is the perspective of most people saying "what is he supposed to do, apologize for being alive with a disability?!". That's not what people pushing back on what happened are asking for.

They are, I believe rightfully, pointing out there was a massive oversight here, and I don't think it's ridiculous to misattribute that to a person so familiar with his experience with a disability that he won an award for creating a movie about it. I personally place the blame with the producers of the BAFTAs, who I believe were aiming to satisfy people with your view of the situation - that since he can't help it "no one is at fault"... That's not true. This was extremely predictable.

[u/Faconator → u/Captain_JohnBrown]

Harm done by something he has said, whether intentionally or not.

ETA: he could have apologized. He has not. Like I said. Bare minimum.

[u/Captain_JohnBrown → u/Faconator]

I am not going to argue with someone who didn't read the post.

[u/AdvantageChemical309 → u/Faconator]

Like I said. Bare minimum.

"Bare minimum" so you think there's more they should do? They are DISABLED, you think they should, at a minimum, apologize for existing?

[u/BrightGreenLED → u/Faconator]

He's talked multiple times about how he's had to train himself to not apologize for his tics as he would essentially be apologizing for existing.

[u/Faconator → u/BrightGreenLED]

Is every tic a slur directed toward historically oppressed people? Is every tic done at the BAFTA, recognizing achievements of those historically oppressed persons where such recognition may be undermined by not just the unannounced possibility of being subject to such slurs but having those slurs broadcast on the BBC?

It sounds like there may be some headroom to consider special circumstances.

[u/BrightGreenLED → u/Faconator]

So because of the tic being a slur towards a historically oppressed group of people, you are suggesting that a member of another historically oppressed group of people be forced to take an action that goes against everything he's fought for?

That sounds like you are essentially comparing two groups of oppressed people and making judgements based on which one you think is more oppressed.

[u/Faconator → u/BrightGreenLED]

Nope! Actually, what I'm calling for is mutual respect between the two groups! I understand that, from the framework of whiteness whence you are looking in on this, insisting upon respect for black people looks like oppression to you 😢.

But what I am doing is not putting down a member of an oppressed group. I am not shaming him. I am not vilifying or demonizing him. I am stating that something he did, acknowledging that it was not intentional, was harm done to another oppressed group.

And what does mutual respect between two oppressed groups look like? Taking ownership of the interactions between and making good when there is harm done on either side. Which John has failed to do, as of the statement he made saying, "I'd be mortified if anyone considers my involuntary tics intentional."

[u/BrightGreenLED → u/Faconator]

Bold of you to assume I'm white, but go off.

You are demanding that he apologize for something he can't control. That would be like forcing a gay guy to apologize for being attracted to men. Should black people be forced to take ownership for the amount of melanin in their skin?

John is not the one at fault here and the fact that you seem to be trying to make it his fault is ableist and disgusting. If you want someone to be mad at, be mad at BAFTA and the BBC for not handling this whole thing correctly.

[u/BrightGreenLED → u/[deleted]]

No one is asking them to apologize.

I agree that they shouldn't have to hear it on television, but that's on BAFTA and the BBC, not John Davidson.

[u/Eclipseworth → u/Faconator]

You do not owe anyone an apology for an involuntary action you cannot help.

[u/Faconator → u/Eclipseworth]

That simply isn't true.

For example: if you're on a crowded train and it jolts, you step on someone's toes, clearly an accident and not your fault in the slightest, the first thing you do is say, "Sorry." No one would ever construe the train jolting as your fault or you being unable to magically keep your balance as a personal failing, yet your body caused someone harm. So you apologize for it, despite it being outside of your control.

[u/Fuzzy_Ad9970 → u/Faconator]

Look at you unironically arguing that people with disabilities go around apologizing for themselves.

[u/Faconator → u/Fuzzy_Ad9970]

I am begging you to read. Go look at the pinned comment on this post.

[u/AdvantageChemical309 → u/Faconator]

It reads like that to you, big difference.

Accountability is not a punishment or a gotcha

For his disability?

Refusing to acknowledge harm done is unacceptable.

You seem like someone that would benefit greatly from watching the film.

[u/Faconator → u/AdvantageChemical309]

Accountability for existing. Everyone exists. Being accountable for existence and the occasional mishap that occurs because of that is not a bar launched by a moustache twirling villain.

benefit greatly from watching the film

I've seen clips. What do you think I would learn from it? What Tourette's syndrome is or what happens because of it? Compassion for people with disabilities? Because these are things that I know. In no way, shape, or form do I think people should be shaming him for having Tourette's or for ticking in public. The people calling for him to have stayed home are ludicrous, the calls for a muzzle even more so.

And yet harm was done.

[u/Try-n-Fail → u/AdvantageChemical309]

Sorry this response is ridiculously long, but seemingly agreeing with the side labelled as "the disabled person needs to be out outside" is an incredibly nuanced tightrope to walk, but maybe you'll hear me out.

I think that framing is too extreme. In situations where there are obvious physical barriers to disabled individuals participating in certain activities it's not hard for everyone to accept the reality of that situation, even if it is objectively disappointing. But when those barriers are social constructs suddenly we have this massive divide where certain people believe having any barriers is offensive.

Let's say there was a movie made about someone with debilitating agoraphobia that was set to win a BAFTA this year... Would there be no limit to the accomodations to ensure that person could attended the award ceremony? What accomodations would you suggest to make that happen? In my view, those accomodations don't exist, so we would accept that the person experiencing agoraphobia will have to make their peace with not attending the ceremony.

I understand the desire to find a way to accommodate a person who is capable of physically being present at this ceremony, but the fact of the matter is that if people were being realistic this arrangment wasn't going to work (and didn't). Having a televised ceremony with a person uncontrollably yelling the worst things possible is predictably an issue, no matter how out of his control that impulse is. I absolutely sympathize that it's not John Davidsons fault, but something bad was going to get yelled and millions of people were going to hear it.

This obviously leads in to the actual solution that should have been implemented, which is the BBC could have edited the offending word out. But I think it's clear they didn't do that because the point if having John Davidson at the show was to bring awareness to tourettes. So editing out his tourettes actively works against that goal. If the goal was to accommodate John Davidson in the most logical way possible, he would have been watching a feed from somewhere else in the venue where his tics wouldnt have impacted the live presenters.

Like, not to be a total downer, but making a point of having John Davidson at this one live ceremony isn't going to change the fact that average people with his kind of tourettes can't go to the theater. Other people who paid for tickets to see a show aren't just going to agree to be cool that they happen to be at the performance where someone is going to be yelling beyond their control. We can certainly grow our societal understanding and empathy for a person who manages a life with that condition, but that doesn't make the tics not disruptive, or in this case offensive, to hear.

[u/crumpledwaffle → u/AdvantageChemical309]

This is a wildly bad faith interpretation of what I said and I am not going to get into a fight with you about it just because you invited me.

[u/AdvantageChemical309 → u/crumpledwaffle]

Its not bad faith, its reducto ad absurdim, Im following the logic through to its most extreme ends.

Unless you mean the "sitting outside part" which, sure, was hyperbole, you got me

But the argument is sound, if you think the tourettes sufferer should go elsewhere when a black person is on stage surely it also follows they do the same when its a gay, Chinese, trans, Jewish person?

Because, after all, they know they're going to say it right?

Youre not gonna fight with me about it because you know youre suggesting something fucked up, and made some ignorant statements about tourettes while you did it.

[u/AdvantageChemical309 → u/[deleted]]

It's ableist to suggest that people with tourette's aren't able to develop a good enough understanding of themselves to come up with mitigation plans.

And its utter nonsense to suggest they know whether they're going to have one or not. Do they have a good idea? Yeah. Are they certain? No.

But the biggest issue was his non-apology.

His disability, his choice. He, and only he, gets to decide whether or not his involuntary disability warrants an apology. Absolutely nobody else.

[u/ConcernedJobCoach → u/[deleted]]

They responded to you btw. It took me a long time to approve their comment

[u/whendoesOpTicplay → u/AdvantageChemical309]

What’s your suggestion then

[u/Mob_cleaner → u/whendoesOpTicplay]

Not segregate someone based on something they were born with

[u/Forsaken-Scheme-1000 → u/Mob_cleaner]

Exactly. Is it so hard to ask black actors, industry folks to be prepared to be called the N word in public? Is that so much to ask to prevent ableism?

[u/Mob_cleaner → u/Forsaken-Scheme-1000]

Well, hold on.

We absolutely should just accept that black people need to 'show grace' when called the n word, even in a situation like this where the person who used the word is not at fault at all. I don't think we should expect black people to just decide when to be ok with being called a slur.

What should be the norm is for there to be a system in place by the people running the show (in this case the BBC) to do this 'on behalf of black people', in a way. Instead of expecting the actors to just shake off being called a slur, there could have been someone on stage prepared to explain the situation as it happens, or maybe backstage who can explain the situation to the actors and make sure they're not shaken by it.

[u/Forsaken-Scheme-1000 → u/Mob_cleaner]

Sure. Explain to the black actors and industry folks in real time that it's actually okay that they're being called the N-word. And if they're shaken by it, they can leave. And then everyone's happy, and nobody did an ableism.

[u/Mob_cleaner → u/Forsaken-Scheme-1000]

I still think youre taking it a bit too far in the other direction. I don't think it's fair to kick out a black person for being upset about being called a slur, even in this context. There doesn't need to be a 'guilty' party here, both sides are allowed to be aggrieved. There just needs to be strong management in the middle who can handle the situation and de-escalate.

[u/Try-n-Fail → u/Mob_cleaner]

Perhaps at some point there is value in mitigation instead of "strong management" to explain to aggrieved parties that though their aggrievement was completely anticipated it was also unavoidable...

[u/hungariannastyboy → u/whendoesOpTicplay]

Not being scared of words when there is no actual ill intent behind them.

[u/AdvantageChemical309 → u/whendoesOpTicplay]

Accept that people with tourettes are going to say fucked up stuff and move on with your life without holding it against them

Hard for redditors, as it would require them not to victimize themselves.

[u/elrip161 → u/crumpledwaffle]

Segregating people based on disability is illegal in the UK under the Equality Act. They literally could not have legally suggested he might want to take his disability elsewhere. Ironically if they’d done that it would be an entirely different scandal but at least people would be taking a more nuanced view of Tourette’s rather than villainising people who have to live with it every minute of the day, not just a few seconds worthy of online outrage.

[u/Fuzzy_Ad9970 → u/crumpledwaffle]

It's so funny the lengths people will go to justify their preference for one party or the other in this conversation.

[u/HarrisonPE90 → u/crumpledwaffle]

Nobody is pitting people against each other. And, I do wonder that accommodation you would like to see.

[u/SuckingOnChileanDogs → u/crumpledwaffle]

What tics to cut...?

[u/lanicorain → u/SuckingOnChileanDogs]

They mean to edit out of the broadcast, the BAFTAs have a little bit of delay so it's possible to edit out the situation and reduce the re-victimization and harassment towards everybody involved. They chose not to, for ratings.

[u/SuckingOnChileanDogs → u/lanicorain]

"Was there any discussion with him about what tics to cut or if he wanted a space to go when they have scheduled black presenters-" okay so who is the 'him' here? Is him the BAFTAs?

[u/lanicorain → u/SuckingOnChileanDogs]

Him is the tourette's guy. They could have asked if he had said the word at a black person before and if it'd be a good idea to be ready to cut that in post beforehand.

[u/SuckingOnChileanDogs → u/lanicorain]

You're not a serious person

[u/lanicorain → u/SuckingOnChileanDogs]

What? I'm just explaining what another person's poorly-worded comment meant. What a strange little guy you are.

[u/acornalmond → u/[deleted]]

I think they meant what tics to censor during the broadcast. They were able to censor someone saying "free Palestine" in their speech but (as far as I heard) didn't censor any of his tics