Well, why don’t you try giving me a good answer to that question and see what happens?
Earlier, you said that the difference was that doing it in a grocery story checkout line was “less likely to cause a major incident”. Could you define what you meant by “major incident”, and explain why it is particularly important to avoid such incidents?
Because you aren’t arguing in good faith. You are doing nothing but doubling down. The only “good answer” you will accept is agreement that you are right. You are sealioning and you can fuck right off.
So are you refusing to answer a simple, direct request for clarification of what you said, or are you not sufficiently aware of your own thought processes to be capable of answering?
Okay, if that’s true, I’ll do my best to answer.
Going to the grocery store and encountering something yucky sucks*. Ideally if that happened at the grocery store the person with Tourette’s would be prepared–maybe with a card explaining the condition that could be handed over, I dunno, but somehow could take the time to smooth over the incident. But for most people, a grocery store visit isn’t a major life event, is instead a chore that’s already tedious.
Going to an awards ceremony at which you’re given one of the top honors in your industry is different. It’s a major life event that you put tons of effort into achieving and into having it go well. You want it to be something you can remember with joy. Having something yucky happen at the ceremony is much higher-stakes: instead of making a chore a bit worse, it can taint a big life event.
It doesn’t follow that folks with Tourette’s should be banned from awards ceremonies. But the stakes are higher.
*On rereading this, here’s a great place for intentional misunderstanding. “Something yucky” does not, of course, refer to “A person with Tourette’s.” It refers to “shouted racial epithets.”
Yes, you have been unfailingly polite, and I have been nothing but rude.
My position is simple: People should generally have the right to not be exposed to racist language. The case of Tourette’s sufferers is a special case in which it is reasonable to expect people to make an exception and not react to such language as they usually would.
I don’t see any reason why these rules should be applied differently based on whether people are wearing formal clothing and/or television cameras are running.
OK, that’s a reasonable distinction. On the other hand: Davidson was there because a movie nominated for an award was about his life. It’s a major life event for him, too. If he had just decided to randomly attend the ceremony for no particular reason, the argument for him not doing so would be much stronger.
Another difference is that, at the grocery store, you can’t reasonably expect the manager to announce over the intercom that a customer may start shouting offensive things and nobody should take offense. But at the BAFTAs, they did have the opportunity to warn and educate the audience ahead of time. As Spice Weasel has explained, they apparently didn’t do a good job of that. And of course, worst of all, they seated him near a live microphone.
It’s unfair to blame Davidson for choosing to attend the show, since he made that choice based on assurances from BAFTA that his situation would be managed sensitively, and they let him down in a big way.
Meanwhile, over in a BBQ Pt thread that I am intentionally not linking to, Thing.Fish is intentionally and grossly mischaracterizing a rather innocuous post related to the relative rights of the disabled vis-a-vis others in their presence in public and then arguing with everyone trying to point out the problem with this.
I, uh, I think it’s okay if you don’t link to that thread.
That’s a fair thing to say, and I don’t have much stake in this but am inclined to agree with you. My objection is to your unfair paraphrase of @Loach. It’s a long way from Loach’s criticism of Davidson for attending, to saying that disabled people should be locked in the attic.
I don’t really agree.
I don’t see how you can come up with a reasonable definition of “places Tourette’s patients shouldn’t go” that excludes televised award shows but doesn’t exclude virtually everywhere else a person might want to go. Therefore, I don’t see how Loach’s statement can’t be reasonably generalized to “People with Tourette’s shouldn’t ever go out in public”.
“Locked in the attic” was obviously hyperbole, but that’s what actually used to happen to disabled people, and Loach is displaying exactly the sort of ignorant attitudes that led to those abuses.
OMG! Someone is ARGUING in the BBQ Pit? Ban the malefactor!
The obvious difference is that the audience for an award show like the Baftas is virtually the whole world, while swearing in a grocery store has an audience of about 20 people. That’s hyperbolic in your assessment of the event.
ETA: I’m definitely not rooting for having had the guy removed from the event, but some preparations or explanations should have been made in advance, like @Spice_Weasel suggested.
Event organizers should have done their best to accommodate Davidson and attendees. They clearly didn’t.
Maybe Davidson should have demanded such accommodation (or maybe he did but they didn’t come through?), but I don’t know enough to make any definitive determination about that.
Well, preparations and explanations were made, they just apparently did a shit job of it. And the audience for such a show is only “the whole world” if the people running the tape delay are completely asleep on the job, as happened in this case. I don’t think Davidson can be blamed for assuming the people running the production weren’t grossly incompetent at their jobs.
That’s possibly true and I concur, and I don’t want to put any blame on Davidson.
Here’s an article about Davidson’s response to the controversy. Unless he’s flat out lying, he was given assurances that BAFTA would take appropriate measures, including editing any slurs out of the broadcast. He says he has appeared in multiple BBC documentaries before and they have edited appropriately.
Another aspect of this that may be overlooked is that before he dropped the N-bomb, he had already made numerous not-quite-that-bad-but-still-completely-inappropriate outbursts. Someone should have cut off his mike long before then.
When you’re sealioning, you’re not supposed to actually quote the eponymous sea lion, FFS.
Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!
Fuck off, troll.
There are more gracious ways to acknowledge you’ve lost, but that will do.