Bullshit.

@rozeboosje My Tourettes doesn't include coprolalia, thank God, but yes, that's exactly how it feels when I suppress my tics. Sometimes I don't even notice that I'm ticcing. When I do notice it, I can suppress it to some extent for a while, but the pressure does build until I just HAVE to tic, and when I finally do it's like a dam bursting and I'll tic severely for a short period. Sometimes I can redirect the impulse by jiggling my leg, and for some reason that takes some of the pressure off, but never permanently.

Just like autistic people with stimming behaviors, it's becoming more common for people to refuse to mask who they are by trying to suppress their behaviors. It's freeing to just be who you are and let other people worry about it. I suspect that was a major factor in what happened at BAFTA: This is a Tourette's activist about whom a film was made, and I'm guessing the producers chose to allow his outbursts to be heard because they want people to understand that for him this is normal and that they're the ones who need to learn to accept it. My criticism is that racist outbursts are different from mere vulgarities, and that neither the activist nor the producers nor BBC seem to have acknowledged the need to accommodate the needs of Black people as well as the disability community.

@IveyJanette
"Should someone with severe, stimulus-triggered coprolalia be placed in high-profile live public events without safeguards?"

Well, yes, given the nature of the film about Toutettes being referenced. Unless the author wants people with embarassing disabilities to be denied their autonomy. "Be placed" is an odd replacement for the more accurate "be allowed to attend".

@thiswomanswerk
Perhaps both statements are true?

I would also hope that hearing slur words from someone with a declared nuerological disorder would be less harmful than hearing slurs from swastika covered neo-nazi.

Context is important, rather than simply the sounds making up a word, surely?

@rochelimit Ah, so now context is important, when trying to downplay the harm of a racial slur?

If you are not Black you especially have no business suggesting someone should feel less hurt hearing it; even if you are, that's still not your place.

Surely, you can understand the harm caused by an older white man referring to multiple Black people as slurs, especially one laden with a violent historical context, regardless of intention.

@rochelimit @IveyJanette it wasn't live

@wronglang @rochelimit But the BBC could have still bleeped it.

@thiswomanswerk
Perhaps both statements are true?

I would also hope that hearing slur words from someone with a declared nuerological disorder would be less harmful than hearing slurs from swastika covered neo-nazi.

Context is important, rather than simply the sounds making up a word, surely?

@venitamathias Not "chose." No. A part of the brain responsible for language and emotion chose without any volition on his part. He did not choose to utter a slur. He just didn't.

@msbellows @venitamathias it was a choice. As we discussed, even with coprolalia, there are multiple medications that he could have engaged to minimize or negate his issues. He clearly did not engage those options. He could have done multiple things to regulate his system. He did not.

You seem hellbent on justifying the use of this word and it’s beyond disturbing. Asking me “what should he apologize for” is insane. Stop. Your disability does not supersede my humanity.

@ErickaSimone @venitamathias Blocked for ableism. Be kinder.

WHY DO BLACK PEOPLE HAVE TO BE KIND TO RACISTS WHILE YOU ARE THERE JUST WATCHING US GETTING ABUSED, MAIMED & KILLED?

DEAL WITH YOUR RACISTS EVERYWHERE.

language is cultural. there is nothing biological about racism.

it’s because of white supremacists like you that Black people like me go undiagnosed all their lives.

neurobehaviour sciences are extremely tainted by eugenics in USA/UK. stop using disability to normalize racist violence.

@msbellows @ErickaSimone @venitamathias

Bullshit.

#blackmastodon
https://newsone.com/6850753/tourettes-tic-blamed-nword-being-yelled-baftas/

@venitamathias Entirely reasonable. It's painful. Please be well, and thank you for the discussion.

Hoo boy. I have a lot of complicated thoughts and feelings around the BAFTA incident, in part because I have Tourette's (though, thank God, not coprolalia) AND am a lawyer/mediator specializing in disability accommodations (in educational settings). In a nutshell, though:

1. Unless he's a secret racist who shouted the n-word intentionally, the utterance itself truly was an involuntary act for which the speaker should not be blamed. Coprolalia isn't random; it makes people say the MOST transgressive thing possible in the context, which is exactly what happened here. It's troubling to me that some people refuse to accept this reality, which is a form of ableism.

2. The harm to Black people hearing that word nevertheless is extremely real, and the organizers completely fucked up both in how they structured the show and in responding to it afterwards. I understand that the speaker is a Tourette's activist, so I'm guessing both he and the organizers wanted some of the obscenities to be heard by the audience because, yeah, sometimes one person's disability is a little awkward for the people around them, and the people around them need to grow the fuck up and learn to accept it. But that doesn't mean that the harm to hearers can be ignored, especially when racist terms, not just obscene ones, are part of the person's known vocabulary. Disability accommodations require creativity and compromise; that doesn't seem to have happened here, other than a statement given to the audience at the start explaining his disability (which: good, but that approach alone fails to account for the substantial difference between ordinary vulgarities and racist obscenities). And the subsequent rationale that "Look, this is just the nature of Tourette's!" as if disability trumps racism is pitifully inadequate, because it ignores the harm to Black viewers. Tourette's sucks. Racism sucks. Don't minimize either one.

3. BBC has absolutely no excuse for not bleeping out the n-word even if they left in the other vulgarities, and for them to refuse to do so – to treat the n word as if it were no different than "fuck" – shows a profound insensitivity and colonialist mindset, and someone needs to get fired – especially because presumably the same person did bleep out "free Palestine!"

Hoo boy. I have a lot of complicated thoughts and feelings around the BAFTA incident, in part because I have Tourette's (though, thank God, not coprolalia) AND am a lawyer/mediator specializing in disability accommodations (in educational settings). In a nutshell, though:

1. Unless he's a secret racist who shouted the n-word intentionally, the utterance itself truly was an involuntary act for which the speaker should not be blamed. Coprolalia isn't random; it makes people say the MOST transgressive thing possible in the context, which is exactly what happened here. It's troubling to me that some people refuse to accept this reality, which is a form of ableism.

2. The harm to Black people hearing that word nevertheless is extremely real, and the organizers completely fucked up both in how they structured the show and in responding to it afterwards. I understand that the speaker is a Tourette's activist, so I'm guessing both he and the organizers wanted some of the obscenities to be heard by the audience because, yeah, sometimes one person's disability is a little awkward for the people around them, and the people around them need to grow the fuck up and learn to accept it. But that doesn't mean that the harm to hearers can be ignored, especially when racist terms, not just obscene ones, are part of the person's known vocabulary. Disability accommodations require creativity and compromise; that doesn't seem to have happened here, other than a statement given to the audience at the start explaining his disability (which: good, but that approach alone fails to account for the substantial difference between ordinary vulgarities and racist obscenities). And the subsequent rationale that "Look, this is just the nature of Tourette's!" as if disability trumps racism is pitifully inadequate, because it ignores the harm to Black viewers. Tourette's sucks. Racism sucks. Don't minimize either one.

3. BBC has absolutely no excuse for not bleeping out the n-word even if they left in the other vulgarities, and for them to refuse to do so – to treat the n word as if it were no different than "fuck" – shows a profound insensitivity and colonialist mindset, and someone needs to get fired – especially because presumably the same person did bleep out "free Palestine!"

@msbellows it sounds like the man was being generally disruptive and should have left or been removed.

It's one thing to accommodate for disabilities, but he shouldn't be allowed to stay somewhere if he's hurling insults at people. This isn't someone needing a sign language interpreter or to have a ramp to get around. This is something that was disrupting a celebratory event and he was verbally attacking people. If he can't help himself, then he should excuse himself from the event.

@msbellows
1. He shouldn't have attended. If he won, he could have had a pre-recorded, edited speech. Then, he could have prevented any of this.

@katrinakatrinka Please keep reading for discussion of his activism, his right not to be required to mask, and the tension between that and the rights of Black people to be free from slurs.

@msbellows
The point isn't what should have been done *to* him. If his intent was to not offend, then he, knowing better than anyone what he was likely to involuntarily yell, could have taken the precautions to *self-censor*.

Therefore, he chose himself over anyone else who might have to hear him. I can judge that choice.

@msbellows John Davidson chose to use a slur on Black men. Haven't read him using offensive terms towards anyone else that night. He said what he said, and it is neither acceptable or appreciated.